ReportWire

Tag: ISIS

  • 17 Essential Cyberpunk 2077 Side-Quests To Find In Night City

    17 Essential Cyberpunk 2077 Side-Quests To Find In Night City

    [ad_1]

    Screenshot: CD Projekt Red / Kotaku

    Unlike Panam, Judy, and Kerry, River is the one companion you have to go out of your way to meet. Finding the Night City cop and helping him sort through a local mystery that weaves in and out of his family life makes for one of the most interesting breaks in Cyberpunk 2077’s usual action. Expect a little combat and chatter, but also light adventure game mechanics and some pretty horrifying Night City lore.

    This questline does, however, unmask Cyberpunk 2077’s weird, inconsistent framing of cops and law enforcement, even weaponizing the ACAB saying in a particularly tacky lift that I’m not wild about. But if nothing else, these quests offer, for your inspection, a layer of the game’s inherent worldview that’s worth examining and dissecting.

    Available in: Act 2 after Life During Wartime

    How to acquire: Phone call from Elizabeth Peralez

    [ad_2]

    Kenneth Shepard

    Source link

  • At least 20 Syrian soldiers killed in ISIS bus ambush, activists say

    At least 20 Syrian soldiers killed in ISIS bus ambush, activists say

    [ad_1]

    Beirut — Gunmen have ambushed a bus carrying Syrian soldiers in the country’s east, killing at least 20 and wounding others, opposition activists said Friday.

    The Thursday night attack was believed to have been carried out by members of ISIS, whose sleeper cells in parts of Syria still carry deadly attacks despite their defeat in 2019.

    Those cells often use ambushes and hit-and-run attacks, Agence France-Presse points out.

    The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 23 Syrian soldiers were killed and 10 were wounded in the attack on a desert road near the eastern town of Mayadeen in Deir el-Zour province, which borders Iraq.

    AFP cites the observatory as saying, “Dozens of (other) soldiers” were missing after the attack in which the jihadists surrounded the bus and started firing.

    Another activist collective that covers news in eastern Syria said 20 soldiers were killed and others were wounded.

    Syrian state news agency SANA quoted an unnamed military official as saying that the attack occurred Thursday night, “killing and wounding a number of soldiers.” It gave no further details, nor a breakdown in the casualty numbers.

    The bbservatory’s Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP ISIS “has recently been escalating its deadly military attacks … aiming to cause as many deaths as possible” as it tries to send “a message aimed at showing the group is still active and powerful despite the targeting of its leaders.”

    ISIS controlled large parts of Syria and Iraq, where they declared a caliphate in June 2014. Over time, they lost most of the land and were defeated in Iraq in 2017 and two years later in Syria.

    In one of their deadliest in a year, ISIS sleeper cells attacked workers collecting truffles near the central town of Sukhna in February, killing at least 53 people – mostly workers but also some Syrian government security forces.

    Experts who follow Jihadi groups say it’s too soon to say if the new spate of attacks marks a new resurgence by the extremists that ruled millions of people in Syria and Iraq with terror.

    Last week, ISIS announced the death in Syria of its little-known leader, Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini al-Qurayshi – who headed the extremist organization since November – and named his successor. He was the fourth to be killed since its founder, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was killed in 2019 by U.S. troops in northwest Syria.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ISIS leader killed by airstrike in Syria, U.S. Central Command says

    ISIS leader killed by airstrike in Syria, U.S. Central Command says

    [ad_1]

    A U.S. airstrike on Friday killed ISIS leader Usamah al-Muhajir in eastern Syria, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) said early Sunday. 

    The deadly drone strike was carried out the same day and by a drone that the Defense Department said was being “harassed” by Russia flying over the western part of Syria. 

    According to CENTCOM, no civilians were killed in drone strike but they are evaulating reports of a civilian injury. 

    On Friday, Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, Commander, 9th AF (AFCENT) and Combined Forces Air Component Commander (CFACC) for CENTCOM, issued a statment said that “three MQ-9 drones wer eonce again harassed by Russian fighter aircraft while flying over Syria.”

    EEUU-SIRIA-DRONES
    En esta imagen, tomada de un video distribuido por la Fuerza Aérea de EEUU, un SU-35 ruso vuela cerca de un dron MQ-9 Reaper estadounidense el 5 de julio de 2023, sobre Siria. (Fuerza Aérea de EEUU vía AP)

    EEUU vía AP


    “During the almost two hour encounter, Russian aircraft flew 18 unprofessional close passes that caused the MQ-9s to react to avoid unsafe situations,” Grynkewich said. “We continue to encourage Russia to return to the established norms of a professional Air Force so we can all return our focus to ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS.”   

    It was the third straight day the Defense Department issued a statement about the Russian military engaging in “unsafe and unprofessional behavior.” 

    Meanwhile, the U.S. Africa Command said Sunday that they had conducted three collective self-defense airstrikes overnight in a remote area against al Shabaab terrorists in support of the Somali National Army forces. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US says drones harassed by Russian aircraft killed ISIS leader in Syria | CNN Politics

    US says drones harassed by Russian aircraft killed ISIS leader in Syria | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US military killed an ISIS leader on Friday in a drone strike in eastern Syria, the US Central Command announced Sunday.

    The strike, carried out by the same MQ-9 Reaper drones that were harassed by Russian aircraft earlier that day, killed Usama al-Muhajir, according to a press release.

    “We have made it clear that we remain committed to the defeat of ISIS throughout the region,” Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, commander of CENTCOM, said in the release. “ISIS remains a threat, not only to the region but well beyond.”

    CENTCOM said no civilians were killed in the strike but it is assessing reports of civilian injury.

    US drones participating in the anti-ISIS mission in Syria were harassed three times in as many days last week by Russian aircraft that are in Syria in support of President Bashar al-Assad.

    The incident Friday between the Russian fighter jets and the US drones lasted for nearly two hours, a US Air Forces Central release said. Lt. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, commander of US Air Forces Central, said in the release that Russian aircraft “flew 18 unprofessional close passes that caused the MQ-9s to react to avoid unsafe situations.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Video shows Russian fighter jets

    Video shows Russian fighter jets

    [ad_1]

    U.S. accuses Russia of harassing its drones


    U.S. accuses Russia of harassing its military drones in Syria

    00:27

    U.S. military drones conducting an operation against Islamic State targets in Syria were harassed by Russian fighter jets, authorities said Wednesday. It marks at least the second such incident this year. 

    Three MQ-9 Reaper drones were engaged by three Russian fighter jets at about 10:40 a.m. local time, according to a statement from Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, commander of the Ninth Air Force, an Air Force Service Component of U.S. Central Command.

    Grynkewich said the jets broke “established norms and protocols” by dropping “multiple parachute flares in front of the drones,” subsequently forcing them to “conduct evasive maneuvers.”

    One of the Russian pilots also positioned their jet in front of a drone and “engaged afterburner, thereby reducing” the drone “operator’s ability to safely operate the aircraft,” Grynkewich said.

    Russian fighter jets harass U.S. military drones in Syria, officials say
    Drone video that U.S. Air Force officials say shows multiple Russian fighter jets harassing U.S. military MQ-9 drones on July 5, 2023, over Syria during an operation targeting the Islamic State. 

    U.S. Air Force


    He described the Russian pilots’ actions as “unprofessional and unsafe.”   

    “We urge Russian forces in Syria to cease this reckless behavior and adhere to the standards of behavior expected of a professional air force so we can resume our focus on the enduring defeat of ISIS,” Grynkewich said.

    Drone video of the encounter was released by the Air Force.    

    This is at least the second time this year that a confrontation between U.S. drones and Russian fighter jets has occurred. The Pentagon in March released video of a Russian fighter jet colliding with a U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper drone in international air space, causing the drone to crash into the Black Sea.

    “The United States will continue to fly and to operate wherever international law allows, and it is incumbent upon Russia to operate its military aircraft in a safe and professional manner,” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said at the time.

    According to the Air Force, an MQ-9 Reaper drone is primarily used for intelligence gathering, but can also be equipped with up to eight laser-guided Hellfire missiles.  

    Tucker Reals and Alex Sundby contributed to this report. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Turkey kills ISIS leader in Syria operation, Erdogan says | CNN

    Turkey kills ISIS leader in Syria operation, Erdogan says | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed on Sunday that the country’s intelligence forces had killed the leader of ISIS in Syria as he vowed to continue the country’s fight against terrorism.

    In a broadcast, Erdogan said Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization had been tracking a man known as Abu al-Hussein al-Husseini Al-Qurshi “for a long time.”

    “This person was neutralized in the operation carried out by MIT (Turkish National Intelligence Organization) yesterday in Syria,” he said. “From now on, we will continue our fight without discrimination against terrorist organizations.”

    He added that Turkey’s fight against terrorism contributes to Europe’s security, claiming that Europe “is not aware of this or does not want to be aware of it.”

    Al-Qurshi was named ISIS leader after the death of his predecessor, Abu al-Hasan al-Hashmi al-Qurayshi, who was killed last October by the Free Syrian Army in Syria.

    Little was known about Al-Qurshi, but at the time of his appointment, ISIS described him as an “old fighter.”

    Erdogan’s announcement came after a recent absence from the public eye due to illness.

    Media reports had speculated that his health was deteriorating just two weeks before a crucial election.

    The speculation followed a televised interview on Tuesday, which was interrupted after Erdogan left his chair in the middle of a question, before returning to explain he had a “serious stomach flu.”

    Following Tuesday’s incident, Erdogan was advised by his doctors to rest at home and canceled a number of public events.

    On Thursday, the Turkish government rejected news reports about his health as “baseless claims.” He appeared on video link the same day for the inauguration of the Akkuya nuclear power plant.

    Erdogan made his return to public stage for the first time in three days on Saturday, at an aviation festival in Istanbul, where he rallied his supporters as he seeks to extend his 20-year stint in power.

    Turkey goes to the polls on May 14, just three months after a devastating earthquake and amid soaring inflation and a currency crisis that last year slashed nearly 30% off the lira’s value against the dollar.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ISIS leader responsible for Kabul airport attack killed by Taliban, U.S. officials say

    ISIS leader responsible for Kabul airport attack killed by Taliban, U.S. officials say

    [ad_1]

    ISIS leader responsible for Kabul airport attack killed by Taliban, U.S. officials say – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The ISIS leader responsible for the 2021 Kabul airport attack that killed 13 U.S. service members has been killed by the Taliban, according to Biden administration officials. David Martin has more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Police investigating reports of Liverpool bus attack after Manchester City match | CNN

    Police investigating reports of Liverpool bus attack after Manchester City match | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Greater Manchester Police (GMP) is investigating reports that Liverpool’s team bus was damaged after the club’s English Premier League match against Manchester City, the police force said in a statement.

    The incident is reported to have taken place close to the Etihad Stadium, where the match was held, on Saturday afternoon, GMP said.

    “There were no reports of any injuries and the Liverpool Club coaches were able to continue with their journey. An investigation has now been launched by Greater Manchester Police to identify and locate the offenders,” read the statement sent to CNN.

    Manchester City, who won the tie 4-1 to keep alive its hopes of winning a third successive league title, described the incident as “totally unacceptable” and said it would “fully support” the investigation.

    “We understand an object was thrown towards the coach in a residential area,” the statement said.

    “Incidents of this kind are totally unacceptable, and we strongly condemn the actions of the individual(s) responsible.”

    Manchester City also addressed the chanting aimed at Liverpool fans during the game. Some British media outlets reported that the chanting made reference to the 1989 Hillsborough stadium disaster which caused 97 Liverpool fans to lose their lives.

    “We regret any offence these chants may have caused and will continue to work with supporter groups and officials from both clubs to eradicate hateful chanting from this fixture,” City said.

    Liverpool has not responded to CNN’s request for comment.

    In a statement to CNN, the Premier League said: “The Premier League condemns the chanting heard during today’s match between Manchester City and Liverpool. The League is treating the issue of tragedy chanting as a priority and as a matter of urgency.”

    The rivalry between the two English teams has increased in recent seasons as both have vied for the league title. Last season, City finished one point ahead of Liverpool in the title race.

    In 2018, UEFA, European soccer’s governing body, fined Liverpool after fans threw objects at City’s team bus ahead of a Champions League quarterfinal at Anfield.

    Last October, City manager Pep Guardiola said coins were thrown towards him during a league game between the two teams, and after the same match Liverpool condemned the “vile chants relating to football stadium tragedies” heard in the away end of the stadium, adding that offensive graffiti was also found in the away section.

    Fans singing songs about stadium disasters or fatal accidents, which has been described as ‘tragedy chanting,’ has been put in the spotlight in England this season.

    Ahead of Manchester United’s league match against Liverpool last month, the respective managers of both clubs called for an end to such chanting in a joint statement.

    The Football Association, English football’s governing body, said it strongly condemned such chants.

    In a statement to CNN, a FA spokesperson said: “We are very concerned about the rise of abhorrent chants in stadiums that are related to the Hillsborough disaster and other football related tragedies.

    “These chants are highly offensive and are deeply upsetting for the families, friends and communities who have been impacted by these devastating events, and we strongly condemn this behaviour.

    “We support clubs and fans who try to stamp out this behaviour from our game. We also support the excellent work of the survivor groups who engage with stakeholders across football to help educate people about the damaging and lasting effects that these terrible chants can have.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Convicted ISIS supporter sentenced to additional year in prison over meeting with ‘American Taliban’ John Lindh | CNN Politics

    Convicted ISIS supporter sentenced to additional year in prison over meeting with ‘American Taliban’ John Lindh | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Virginia man convicted of providing support to ISIS in 2015 was sentenced Thursday to serve an additional year in prison for breaking his release conditions after meeting multiple times with John Walker Lindh, the so-called “American Taliban” and sharing ISIS propaganda online in encrypted chats.

    In 2015, Ali Shukri Amin pleaded guilty to providing support to ISIS – posting articles on how ISIS members could avoid detection in online communications and sharing instructions on how the terrorist group could use cryptocurrency for fundraising efforts, according to the plea agreement.

    Amin, who was 17 years old when he pleaded guilty, served several years in prison before being released on supervision.

    According to the government, Amin broke his release conditions when he met Lindh, a convicted felon, in person several times, communicated with him and others on an unmonitored device and shared and translated ISIS propaganda online.

    One file stored on his device, which Amin attempted to share with others, according to the government, contained an ISIS propaganda video showing mass beheadings and attack instructions, prosecutors said.

    “Now he has a network of like-minded convicted terrorists,” prosecutors said, adding, “Mr. Amin continues to support ISIS” and “remains a danger to society.”

    Amin’s attorney, Jessica Carmichael, told the court that Amin also had anti-ISIS material on his computer and said that his conversations with Lindh online were largely about job searches.

    “We’re talking about having dinner with John Walker Lindh three times,” Carmichael said, noting that Lindh was also on supervision at the time of the meetings in 2021 and was being supervised by the same probation officer as Amin.

    Lindh, who was released in 2019, was also on supervised release and subject to the same condition as Amin at the time of the alleged meetings, but has not been accused of violating those terms.

    Amin told the court the government had used “selective quotes” that were out of context but said he regretted “my poor decisions.”

    “I will do better,” he told District Judge Claude M. Hilton.

    Hilton also sentenced Amin to a lifetime of supervised release.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New attack targets U.S. base in Syria following American airstrikes over contractor’s death

    New attack targets U.S. base in Syria following American airstrikes over contractor’s death

    [ad_1]

    New attack targets U.S. base in Syria following American airstrikes over contractor’s death – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    A new attack targeted a U.S. military base in Syria on Friday, according to U.S. officials. Overnight, the U.S. military carried out precision airstrikes in retaliation for another attack Thursday that killed an American contractor and hurt six other people, according to the Pentagon. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby told CBS News correspondent Christina Ruffini the U.S. does not want to escalate matters, but will defend American forces. CBS News senior foreign correspondent Holly Williams joined Vladimir Duthiers and Anne-Marie Green with more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact check: Trump delivers wildly dishonest speech at CPAC | CNN Politics

    Fact check: Trump delivers wildly dishonest speech at CPAC | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    As president, Donald Trump made some of his most thoroughly dishonest speeches at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

    As he embarks on another campaign for the presidency, Trump delivered another CPAC doozy Saturday night.

    Trump’s lengthy address to the right-wing gathering in Maryland was filled with wildly inaccurate claims about his own presidency, Joe Biden’s presidency, foreign affairs, crime, elections and other subjects.

    Here is a fact check of 23 of the false claims Trump made. (And that’s far from the total.)

    Crime in Manhattan

    While Trump criticized Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who has been investigating Trump’s company, he claimed that “killings are taking place at a number like nobody’s ever seen, right in Manhattan.”

    Facts First: It isn’t even close to true that Manhattan is experiencing a number of killings that nobody has ever seen. The region classified by the New York Police Department as Manhattan North had 43 reported murders in 2022; that region had 379 reported murders in 1990 and 306 murders in 1993. The Manhattan South region had 35 reported murders in 2022 versus 124 reported murders in 1990 and 86 murders in 1993. New York City as a whole is also nowhere near record homicide levels; the city had 438 reported murders in 2022 versus 2,262 in 1990 and 1,927 in 1993.

    Manhattan North had just eight reported murders this year through February 19, while Manhattan South had one. The city as a whole had 49 reported murders.

    The National Guard and Minnesota

    Talking about rioting amid racial justice protests after the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020, Trump claimed he had been ready to send in the National Guard in Seattle, then added, “We saved Minneapolis. The thing is, we’re not supposed to do that. Because it’s up to the governor, the Democrat governor. They never want any help. They don’t mind – it’s almost like they don’t mind to have their cities and states destroyed. There’s something wrong with these people.”

    Facts First: This is a reversal of reality. Minnesota’s Democratic governor, Tim Walz, not Trump, was the one who deployed the Minnesota National Guard during the 2020 unrest; Walz first activated the Guard more than seven hours before Trump publicly threatened to deploy the Guard himself. Walz’s office told CNN in 2020 that the governor activated the Guard in response to requests from officials in Minneapolis and St. Paul – cities also run by Democrats.

    Trump has repeatedly made the false claim that he was the one who sent the Guard to Minneapolis. You can read a longer fact check, from 2020, here.

    Trump’s executive order on monuments

    Trump boasted that he had taken effective action as president to stop the destruction of statues and memorials. He claimed: “I passed and signed an executive order. Anybody that does that gets 10 years in jail, with no negotiation – it’s not ’10’ but it turns into three months.” He added: “But we passed it. It was a very old law, and we found it – one of my very good legal people along with [adviser] Stephen Miller, they found it. They said, ‘Sir, I don’t know if you want to try and bring this back.’ I said. ‘I do.’”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. He did not create a mandatory 10-year sentence for people who damage monuments. In fact, his 2020 executive order did not mandate any increase in sentences.

    Rather, the executive order simply directed the attorney general to “prioritize” investigations and prosecutions of monument-destruction cases and declared that it is federal policy to prosecute such cases to the fullest extent permitted under existing law, including an existing law that allowed a sentence of up to 10 years in prison for willfully damaging federal property. The executive order did nothing to force judges to impose a 10-year sentence.

    Vandalism in Portland

    Trump claimed, “How’s Portland doing? They don’t even have storefronts anymore. Everything’s two-by-four’s because they get burned down every week.”

    Facts First: This is a major exaggeration. Portland obviously still has hundreds of active storefronts, though it has struggled with downtown commercial vacancies for various reasons, and some businesses are sometimes vandalized by protesters. Trump has for years exaggerated the extent of property damage from protest vandalism in Portland.

    Russian expansionism

    Boasting of his foreign policy record, Trump claimed, “I was also the only president where Russia didn’t take over a country during my term.”

    Facts First: While it’s true that Russia didn’t take over a country during Trump’s term, it’s not true that he was the only US president under whom Russia didn’t take over a country. “Totally false,” Michael Khodarkovsky, a Loyola University Chicago history professor who is an expert on Russian imperialism, said in an email. “If by Russia he means the current Russian Federation that existed since 1991, then the best example is Clinton, 1992-98. During this time Russia fought a war in Chechnya, but Chechnya was not a country but one of Russia’s regions.”

    Khodarkovsky added, “If by Russia he means the USSR, as people often do, then from 1945, when the USSR occupied much of Eastern Europe until 1979, when USSR invaded Afghanistan, Moscow did not take over any new country. It only sent forces into countries it had taken over in 1945 (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968).”

    NATO funding

    Trump said while talking about NATO funding: “And I told delinquent foreign nations – they were delinquent, they weren’t paying their bills – that if they wanted our protection, they had to pay up, and they had to pay up now.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that NATO countries weren’t paying “bills” until Trump came along or that they were “delinquent” in the sense of failing to pay bills – as numerous fact-checkers pointed out when Trump repeatedly used such language during his presidency. NATO members haven’t been failing to pay their share of the organization’s common budget to run the organization. And while it’s true that most NATO countries were not (and still are not) meeting NATO’s target of each country spending a minimum of 2% of gross domestic product on defense, that 2% figure is what NATO calls a “guideline”; it is not some sort of binding contract, and it does not create liabilities. An official NATO recommitment to the 2% guideline in 2014 merely said that members not currently at that level would “aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade.”

    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg did credit Trump for securing increases in European NATO members’ defense spending, but it’s worth noting that those countries’ spending had also increased in the last two years of the Obama administration following Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea and the recommitment that year to the 2% guideline. NATO notes on its website that 2022 was “the eighth consecutive year of rising defence spending across European Allies and Canada.”

    NATO’s existence

    Boasting of how he had secured additional funding for NATO from countries, Trump claimed, “Actually, NATO wouldn’t even exist if I didn’t get them to pay up.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense.

    There was never any indication that NATO, created in 1949, would have ceased to exist in the early 2020s without additional funding from some members. The alliance was stable even with many members not meeting the alliance’s guideline of having members spend 2% of their gross domestic product on defense.

    We don’t often fact-check claims about what might have happened in an alternative scenario, but this Trump claim has no basis in reality. “The quote doesn’t make sense, obviously,” said Erwan Lagadec, research professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and an expert on NATO.

    Lagadec noted that NATO has had no trouble getting allies to cover the roughly $3 billion in annual “direct” funding for the organization, which is “peanuts” to this group of countries. And he said that the only NATO member that had given “any sign” in recent years that it was thinking about leaving the alliance “was … the US, under Trump.” Lagadec added that the US leaving the alliance is one scenario that could realistically kill it, but that clearly wasn’t what Trump was talking about in his remarks on spending levels.

    James Goldgeier, an American University professor of international relations and Brookings Institution visiting fellow, said in an email: “NATO was founded in 1949, so it seems very clear that Donald Trump had nothing to do with its existence. In fact, the worry was that he would pull the US out of NATO, as his national security adviser warned he would do if he had been reelected.”

    The cost of NATO’s headquarters

    Trump mocked NATO’s headquarters, saying, “They spent – an office building that cost $3 billion. It’s like a skyscraper in Manhattan laid on its side. It’s one of the longest buildings I’ve ever seen. And I said, ‘You should have – instead of spending $3 billion, you should have spent $500 million building the greatest bunker you’ve ever seen. Because Russia didn’t – wouldn’t even need an airplane attack. One tank one shot through that beautiful glass building and it’s gone.’”

    Facts First: NATO did spend a lot of money on its headquarters in Belgium, but Trump’s “$3 billion” figure is a major exaggeration. When Trump used the same inaccurate figure in early 2020, NATO told CNN that the headquarters was actually constructed for a sum under the approved budget of about $1.18 billion euro, which is about $1.3 billion at exchange rates as of Sunday morning.

    The Pulitzer Prize

    Trump made his usual argument that The Washington Post and The New York Times should not have won a prestigious journalism award, a 2018 Pulitzer Prize, for their reporting on Russian interference in the 2016 election and its connections to Trump’s team. He then said, “And they were exactly wrong. And now they’ve even admitted that it was a hoax. It was a total hoax, and they got the prize.”

    Facts First: The Times and Post have not made any sort of “hoax” admission. “The claim is completely false,” Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said in an email on Sunday.

    Stadtlander continued: “When our Pulitzer Prize shared with The Washington Post was challenged by the former President, the award was upheld by the Pulitzer Prize Board after an independent review. The board stated that ‘no passages or headlines, contentions or assertions in any of the winning submissions were discredited by facts that emerged subsequent to the conferral of the prizes.’ The Times’s reporting was also substantiated by the Mueller investigation and Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the matter.”

    The Post referred CNN to that same July statement from the Pulitzer Prize Board.

    Awareness of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline

    Trump claimed of his opposition to Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany: “Nord Stream 2 – Nobody ever heard of it … right? Nobody ever heard of Nord Stream 2 until I came along. I started talking about Nord Stream 2. I had to go call it ‘the pipeline’ because nobody knew what I was talking about.”

    Facts First: This is standard Trump hyperbole; it’s just not true that “nobody” had heard of Nord Stream 2 before he began discussing it. Nord Stream 2 was a regular subject of media, government and diplomatic discussion before Trump took office. In fact, Biden publicly criticized it as vice president in 2016. Trump may well have generated increased US awareness to the controversial project, but “nobody ever heard of Nord Stream 2 until I came along” isn’t true.

    Trump and Nord Stream 2

    Trump claimed, “I got along very well with Putin even though I’m the one that ended his pipeline. Remember they said, ‘Trump is giving a lot to Russia.’ Really? Putin actually said to me, ‘If you’re my friend, I’d hate like hell to see you as my enemy.’ Because I ended the pipeline, right? Do you remember? Nord Stream 2.” He continued, “I ended it. It was dead.”

    Facts First: Trump did not kill Nord Stream 2. While he did approve sanctions on companies working on the project, that move came nearly three years into his presidency, when the pipeline was already around an estimated 90% complete – and the state-owned Russian gas company behind the project said shortly after the sanctions that it would complete the pipeline itself. The company announced in December 2020 that construction was resuming. And with days left in Trump’s term in January 2021, Germany announced that it had renewed permission for construction in its waters.

    The pipeline never began operations; Germany ended up halting the project as Russia was about to invade Ukraine early last year. The pipeline was damaged later in the year in what has been described as an act of sabotage.

    The Obama administration and Ukraine

    Trump claimed that while he provided lethal assistance to Ukraine, the Obama administration “didn’t want to get involved” and merely “supplied the bedsheets.” He said, “Do you remember? They supplied the bedsheets. And maybe even some pillows from [pillow businessman] Mike [Lindell], who’s sitting right over here. … But they supplied the bedsheets.”

    Facts First: This is inaccurate. While it’s true that the Obama administration declined to provide weapons to Ukraine, it provided more than $600 million in security assistance to Ukraine between 2014 and 2016 that involved far more than bedsheets. The aid included counter-artillery and counter-mortar radars, armored Humvees, tactical drones, night vision devices and medical supplies.

    Biden and a Ukrainian prosecutor

    Trump claimed that Biden, as vice president, held back a billion dollars from Ukraine until the country fired a prosecutor who was “after Hunter” and a company that was paying him. Trump was referring to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, who sat on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

    Facts First: This is baseless. There has never been any evidence that Hunter Biden was under investigation by the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who had been widely faulted by Ukrainian anti-corruption activists and European countries for failing to investigate corruption. A former Ukrainian deputy prosecutor and a top anti-corruption activist have both said the Burisma-related investigation was dormant at the time Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin.

    Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, told The Washington Post in 2019: “Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma. And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.” In addition, Shokin’s successor as prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, told Bloomberg in 2019: “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws – at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.”

    Biden, as vice president, was carrying out the policy of the US and its allies, not pursuing his own agenda, in threatening to withhold a billion-dollar US loan guarantee if the Ukrainian government did not sack Shokin. CNN fact-checked Trump’s claims on this subject at length in 2019.

    Trump and job creation

    Promising to save Americans’ jobs if he is elected again, Trump claimed, “We had the greatest job history of any president ever.”

    Facts First: This is false. The US lost about 2.7 million jobs during Trump’s presidency, the worst overall jobs record for any president. The net loss was largely because of the Covid-19 pandemic, but even Trump’s pre-pandemic jobs record – about 6.7 million jobs added – was far from the greatest of any president ever. The economy added more than 11.5 million jobs in the first term of Democratic President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

    Tariffs on China

    Trump repeated a trade claim he made frequently during his presidency. Speaking of China, he said he “charged them” with tariffs that had the effect of “bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our Treasury from China. Thank you very much, China.” He claimed that he did this even though “no other president had gotten even 10 cents – not one president got anything from them.”

    Facts First: As we have written repeatedly, it’s not true that no president before Trump had generated any revenue through tariffs on goods from China. In reality, the US has had tariffs on China for more than two centuries, and FactCheck.org reported in 2019 that the US generated an “average of $12.3 billion in custom duties a year from 2007 to 2016, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission DataWeb.” Also, American importers, not Chinese exporters, make the actual tariff payments – and study after study during Trump’s presidency found that Americans were bearing most of the cost of the tariffs.

    The trade deficit with China

    Trump went on to repeat a false claim he made more than 100 times as president – that the US used to have a trade deficit with China of more than $500 billion. He claimed it was “five-, six-, seven-hundred billion dollars a year.”

    Facts First: The US has never had a $500 billion, $600 billion or $700 billion trade deficit with China even if you only count trade in goods and ignore the services trade in which the US runs a surplus with China. The pre-Trump record for a goods deficit with China was about $367 billion in 2015. The goods deficit hit a new record of about $418 billion under Trump in 2018 before falling back under $400 billion in subsequent years.

    Trump and the 2020 election

    Trump said people claim they want to run against him even though, he claimed, he won the 2020 election. He said, “I won the second election, OK, won it by a lot. You know, when they say, when they say Biden won, the smart people know that didn’t [happen].”

    Facts First: This is Trump’s regular lie. He lost the 2020 election to Biden fair and square, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College. Biden earned more than 7 million more votes than Trump did.

    Democrats and elections

    Trump said Democrats are only good at “disinformation” and “cheating on elections.”

    Facts First: This is nonsense. There is just no basis for a broad claim that Democrats are election cheaters. Election fraud and voter fraud are exceedingly rare in US elections, though such crimes are occasionally committed by officials and supporters of both parties. (We’ll ignore Trump’s subjective claim about “disinformation.”)

    The liberation of the ISIS caliphate

    Trump repeated his familiar story about how he had supposedly liberated the “caliphate” of terror group ISIS in “three weeks.” This time, he said, “In fact, with the ISIS caliphate, a certain general said it could only be done in three years, ‘and probably it can’t be done at all, sir.’ And I did it in three weeks. I went over to Iraq, met a great general. ‘Sir, I can do it in three weeks.’ You’ve heard that story. ‘I can do it in three weeks, sir.’ ‘How are you going to do that?’ They explained it. I did it in three weeks. I was told it couldn’t be done at all, that it would take at least three years. Did it in three weeks. Knocked out 100% of the ISIS caliphate.”

    Facts First: Trump’s claim of eliminating the ISIS caliphate in “three weeks” isn’t true; the ISIS “caliphate” was declared fully liberated more than two years into Trump’s presidency, in 2019. Even if Trump was starting the clock at the time of his visit to Iraq, in late December 2018, the liberation was proclaimed more than two and a half months later. In addition, Trump gave himself far too much credit for the defeat of the caliphate, as he has in the past, when he said “I did it”: Kurdish forces did much of the ground fighting, and there was major progress against the caliphate under President Barack Obama in 2015 and 2016.

    IHS Markit, an information company that studied the changing size of the caliphate, reported two days before Trump’s 2017 inauguration that the caliphate shrunk by 23% in 2016 after shrinking by 14% in 2015. “The Islamic State suffered unprecedented territorial losses in 2016, including key areas vital for the group’s governance project,” an analyst there said in a statement at the time.

    Military equipment left in Afghanistan

    Trump claimed, as he has before, that the US left behind $85 billion worth of military equipment when it withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021. He said of the leader of the Taliban: “Now he’s got $85 billion worth of our equipment that I bought – $85 billion.” He added later: “The thing that nobody ever talks about, we lost 13 [soldiers], we lost $85 billion worth of the greatest military equipment in the world.”

    Facts First: Trump’s $85 billion figure is false. While a significant quantity of military equipment that had been provided by the US to Afghan government forces was indeed abandoned to the Taliban upon the US withdrawal, the Defense Department has estimated that this equipment had been worth about $7.1 billion – a chunk of about $18.6 billion worth of equipment provided to Afghan forces between 2005 and 2021. And some of the equipment left behind was rendered inoperable before US forces withdrew.

    As other fact-checkers have previously explained, the “$85 billion” is a rounded-up figure (it’s closer to $83 billion) for the total amount of money Congress has appropriated during the war to a fund supporting the Afghan security forces. A minority of this funding was for equipment.

    The Afghanistan withdrawal and the F-16

    Trump claimed that the Taliban acquired F-16 fighter planes because of the US withdrawal, saying: “They feared the F-16s. And now they own them. Think of it.”

    Facts First: This is false. F-16s were not among the equipment abandoned upon the US withdrawal and the collapse of the Afghan armed forces, since the Afghan armed forces did not fly F-16s.

    The border wall

    Trump claimed that he had kept his promise to complete a wall on the border with Mexico: “As you know, I built hundreds of miles of wall and completed that task as promised. And then I began to add even more in areas that seemed to be allowing a lot of people to come in.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that Trump “completed” the border wall. According to an official “Border Wall Status” report written by US Customs and Border Protection two days after Trump left office, about 458 miles of wall had been completed under Trump – but about 280 more miles that had been identified for wall construction had not been completed.

    The report, provided to CNN’s Priscilla Alvarez, said that, of those 280 miles left to go, about 74 miles were “in the pre-construction phase and have not yet been awarded, in locations where no barriers currently exist,” and that 206 miles were “currently under contract, in place of dilapidated and outdated designs and in locations where no barriers previously existed.”

    Latin America and deportations

    Trump told his familiar story about how, until he was president, the US was unable to deport MS-13 gang members to other countries, “especially” Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras because those countries “didn’t want them.”

    Facts First: It’s not true that, as a rule, Guatemala and Honduras wouldn’t take back migrants being deported from the US during Obama’s administration, though there were some individual exceptions.

    In 2016, just prior to Trump’s presidency, neither Guatemala nor Honduras was on the list of countries that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) considered “recalcitrant,” or uncooperative, in accepting the return of their nationals.

    For the 2016 fiscal year, Obama’s last full fiscal year in office, ICE reported that Guatemala and Honduras ranked second and third, behind only Mexico, in terms of the country of citizenship of people being removed from the US. You can read a longer fact check, from 2019, here.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • British woman who joined ISIS as a teen loses UK citizenship appeal | CNN

    British woman who joined ISIS as a teen loses UK citizenship appeal | CNN

    [ad_1]


    London
    CNN
     — 

    Shamima Begum, who left the United Kingdom to join ISIS at the age of 15, has lost her appeal against the decision to revoke her British citizenship.

    Judge Robert Jay gave the decision on Wednesday following a five-day hearing in November, during which her lawyers argued the UK Home Office had a duty to investigate whether she was a victim of trafficking before removing her citizenship.

    The ruling does not determine if Begum can return to Britain, but whether the removal of her citizenship was lawful.

    Begum, now 23 and living in a camp in northern Syria, flew to the country in 2015 with two school friends to join the ISIS terror group. In February 2019, she re-emerged and made international headlines as an “ISIS bride” after pleading with the UK government to be allowed to return to her home country for the birth of her son.

    Family of ISIS victim says YouTube algorithm is liable. What will the Supreme Court say?


    02:30

    – Source:
    CNN Business

    Then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid removed her British citizenship on February 19, 2019, and Begum’s newborn son died in a Syrian refugee camp the following month. She told UK media she had two other children prior to that baby, who also died in Syria during infancy.

    Begum’s lawyers criticized Wednesday’s ruling as a “lost opportunity to put into reverse a profound mistake and a continuing injustice.”

    “The outcome is that there is now no protection for a British child trafficked out of the UK if the home secretary invokes national security,” Gareth Pierce and Daniel Furner, of Birnberg Pierce Solicitors, said in a statement seen by UK news agency PA Media.

    “Begum remains in unlawful, arbitrary and indefinite detention without trial in a Syrian camp. Every possible avenue to challenge this decision will be urgently pursued,” it continued.

    Rights group Amnesty International described the ruling as a “very disappointing decision.”

    “The power to banish a citizen like this simply shouldn’t exist in the modern world, not least when we’re talking about a person who was seriously exploited as a child,” Steve Valdez-Symonds, the group’s UK refugee and migrant rights director, said in a statement.

    “Along with thousands of others, including large numbers of women and children, this young British woman is now trapped in a dangerous refugee camp in a war-torn country and left largely at the mercy of gangs and armed groups.”

    “The home secretary shouldn’t be in the business of exiling British citizens by stripping them of their citizenship,” Valdez-Symonds said.

    Javid, the home secretary who removed Begum’s British citizenship, welcomed Wednesday’s ruling, tweeted that it “upheld my decision to remove an individual’s citizenship on national security grounds.”

    “This is a complex case but home secretaries should have the power to prevent anyone entering our country who is assessed to pose a threat to it.” Javid added.

    Begum has made several public appeals as she fought against the government’s decision, most recently appearing in BBC documentary The Shamima Begum Story and a 10-part BBC podcast series.

    In the podcast series she insisted that she is “not a bad person.” While accepting that the British public viewed her as a “danger” and a “risk,” Begum blamed this on her media portrayal.

    She challenged the UK government’s decision to revoke her citizenship but, in June 2019, the government refused her application to be allowed to enter the country to pursue her appeal.

    In 2020, the UK Court of Appeal ruled Begum should be granted leave to enter the country because otherwise, it would not be “a fair and effective hearing.”

    The following year, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, arguing that the Court of Appeal made four errors when it ruled that Begum should be allowed to return to the UK to carry out her appeal.

    UK police appealed for help Friday, Feb. 20, 2015, to find three teenage girls who are missing from their homes in London and are believed to be making their way to Syria.

The girls, two of them 15 and one 16, have not been seen since Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2015, when, police say, they took a flight to Istanbul. One has been named as Shamima Begum, 15, who may be traveling under the name of 17-year-old Aklima Begum, and a second as Kadiza Sultana, 16. The third girl is identified as Amira Abase, 15.

    Shamima Begum loses legal bid to return home to appeal citizenship revocation (February 2021)

    Begum was 15 when she flew out of Gatwick Airport with two classmates and traveled to Syria.

    The teenagers, all from the Bethnal Green Academy in east London, were to join another classmate who had made the same journey months earlier.

    While in Syria, Begum married an ISIS fighter and spent several years living in Raqqa. Begum then reappeared in al-Hawl, a Syrian refugee camp of 39,000 people, in 2019.

    shamima begum sky feb 2019

    With ISIS fall, Europe faces returnees dilemma (February 2019)

    Speaking from the camp before giving birth, Begum told UK newspaper The Times that she wanted to come home to have her child. She said she had already had two other children who died in infancy from malnutrition and illness.

    She gave birth to her son, Jarrah, in al-Hawl in February of that year. The baby’s health quickly deteriorated, and he passed away after being transferred from the camp to the main hospital in al-Hasakah City.

    In response to that news, a British government spokesperson told CNN at the time that “the death of any child is tragic and deeply distressing for the family.”

    But the spokesperson added the UK Foreign Office “has consistently advised against travel to Syria” since 2011.

    Begum pictured at a refugee camp in northern Syria in March 2021.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s hearing on Twitter’s liability for terrorist use of its platform | CNN Business

    Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s hearing on Twitter’s liability for terrorist use of its platform | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    After back-to-back oral arguments this week, the Supreme Court appears reluctant to hand down the kind of sweeping ruling about liability for terrorist content on social media that some feared would upend the internet.

    On Wednesday, the justices struggled with claims that Twitter contributed to a 2017 ISIS attack in Istanbul by hosting content unrelated to the specific incident. Arguments in that case, Twitter v. Taamneh, came a day after the court considered whether YouTube can be sued for recommending videos created by ISIS to its users.

    The closely watched cases carry significant stakes for the wider internet. An expansion of apps and websites’ legal risk for hosting or promoting content could lead to major changes at sites including Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube, to name a few.

    For nearly three hours of oral argument, the justices asked attorneys for Twitter, the US government and the family of Nawras Alassaf – a Jordanian citizen killed in the 2017 attack – how to weigh several factors that might determine Twitter’s level of legal responsibility, if any. But while the justices quickly identified what the relevant factors were, they seemed divided on how to analyze them.

    The court’s conservatives appeared more open to Twitter’s arguments that it is not liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett at one point theorizing point-by-point how such an opinion could be written and Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly offering Twitter what he believed to be a winning argument about how to read the statute.

    The panel’s liberals, by contrast, seemed uncomfortable with finding that Twitter should face no liability for hosting ISIS content. They pushed back on Twitter’s claims that the underlying law should only lead to liability if the help it gave to ISIS can be linked to the specific terrorist attack that ultimately harmed the plaintiffs.

    Here are the takeaways from Wednesday:

    The justices spent much of the time picking through the text of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the law that Twitter is accused of violating – especially the meaning of the words “knowingly” and “substantial.”

    The law says liability can be established for “any person who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism.”

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed unpersuaded by Twitter attorney Seth Waxman’s arguments that Twitter could have been liable if the company were warned that specific accounts were planning a specific attack, but that those were not the facts of the case and Twitter was therefore not liable in the absence of such activity and such warnings.

    Chief Justice John Roberts grappled with the meaning of “substantial” assistance: Hypothetically, he asked, would donating $100 to ISIS suffice, or $10,000?

    “Substantial assistance” would hinge on the degree to which a terror group actually uses a platform such as Twitter to plan, coordinate and carry out a terrorist attack, Waxman said at one point. The existence of some tweets that generally benefited ISIS, he argued, should not be considered substantial assistance.

    The justices alluded to the gravity of the dilemma as they drew analogies to other industries that have grappled with related claims.

    “We’re used to thinking about banks as providing very important services to terrorists,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “Maybe we’re not so used to, but it seems to be true, that various kinds of social media services also provide very important services to terrorists,” the liberal justice said. “If you know you’re providing a very important service to terrorists, why aren’t you [said to be] providing substantial assistance and doing it knowingly?”

    Eric Schnapper, an attorney representing the Alassaf family – who had also argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments in Gonzalez v. Google – again struggled to answer justices’ questions as they sought to find some limiting principle to constrain the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Schnapper to respond to concerns that a ruling finding Twitter liable for the ISIS attack — even when the tweets it hosted had nothing to do with it — would negatively affect charities and humanitarian organizations that might incidentally assist terrorist organizations through their work.

    Schnapper suggested those groups might be insulated from liability due to the law’s “knowledge” requirement, but did not offer the justices a way to draw a bright-line distinction.

    Justice Clarence Thomas hinted at the potential expansiveness of what Schnapper was proposing in calling for Twitter to be held liable for the ISIS tweets.

    “If we’re not pinpointing cause-and-effect or proximate cause for specific things, and you’re focused on infrastructure or just the availability of these platforms, then it would seem that every terrorist attack that uses this platform would also mean that Twitter is an aider and abettor in those instances,” Thomas said.

    “I think in the way that you phrased it, that would probably be, yes,” Schnapper replied, going on to suggest a test involving “remoteness and time, weighed together with volume of activity.”

    Several justices asked the parties to respond to hypotheticals about what liability a business would have for dealing with Osama bin Laden. Their reliance of the terrorist in their examples seemed to get at the “knowing” requirement of the law.

    However, the court is being asked to issue an opinion that will guide lower courts in cases that likely will not involve such high-profile figures.

    Kagan invoked bin Laden’s name when she put forward a hypothetical for US Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler about a bank that offered services to a known terrorist that were the same services it provided its non-terrorist clients. Kneedler, arguing that Twitter should not be found liable under the anti-terrorist law in this case, said that in that scenario, the bank could be sued under the law.

    Other exchanges during the hearing revolved around the liability for a business that sold bin Laden a cell phone, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asking if the business could be sued even if bin Laden did not use the cell phone for the terrorist attack that injured the plaintiff. Schnapper said that bin Laden would not need to use the cell phone in an attack for the seller to be found liable.

    Gorsuch put forward a theory for why Twitter should prevail in the case but neither Twitter nor the US Justice Department took him up on it.

    Gorsuch gave Waxman a chance to reframe his arguments for why Twitter shouldn’t be liable, based on language in the law suggesting a defendant is liable for assistance provided to a person who commits an act of international terrorism. Gorsuch noted the lawsuit against Twitter doesn’t link Twitter to the three people involved in the 2017 attack on the Istanbul nightclub.

    Waxman declined to fully adopt that view, arguing instead that the “aid and abet” language in the statute should be tied to the terrorist activity that gives rise to a suit.

    When Kneedler was up to podium, Gorsuch offered up the theory again, implying it would be a way for Twitter to avoid liability in this case.

    “It seems to me that that’s a pretty important limitation on aiding and abetting liability and conspiracy liability … that you have to aid an actual person,” Gorsuch said. “It’s not just a pedantic point. It has to do with the idea that you’re singling somebody out, and that is different than just doing your business normally, and that does help limit the scope of the act.”

    Jackson later hypothesized why Twitter and the US government were reluctant to endorse Gorsuch’s interpretation of the law, suggesting it was not the limitation Gorsuch thought it was.

    “I’m wondering whether the concern about that is, if you’re focusing on the person [who committed a terrorist act]… that it seems to take the focus away from the act itself,” she told Kneedler. “You could ‘aid and abet’ a person who committed the act, even if it’s not with respect to that act.”

    Justice Kagan voices concern on whether Supreme Court should step in. Listen why

    The Taamneh case is viewed as a turning point for the future of the internet, because a ruling against Twitter could expose the platform – and numerous other websites – to new lawsuits based on their hosting of terrorist content in spite of their efforts to remove such material.

    While it’s too early to tell how the justices may decide the case, the questioning on Wednesday suggested some members of the court believe Twitter should bear some responsibility for indirectly supporting ISIS in general, even if the company may not have been responsible for the specific attack in 2017 that led to the current case.

    But a key question facing the court is whether the Anti-Terrorism Act is the law that can reach that issue – or alternatively, whether the justices can craft a ruling in such a way that it does.

    Rulings in the cases heard this week are expected by late June.

    This story has been updated with Wednesday’s developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet | CNN Business

    Two Supreme Court cases this week could upend the entire internet | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court is set to hear back-to-back oral arguments this week in two cases that could significantly reshape online speech and content moderation.

    The outcome of the oral arguments, scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, could determine whether tech platforms and social media companies can be sued for recommending content to their users or for supporting acts of international terrorism by hosting terrorist content. It marks the Court’s first-ever review of a hot-button federal law that largely protects websites from lawsuits over user-generated content.

    The closely watched cases, known as Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh, carry significant stakes for the wider internet. An expansion of apps and websites’ legal risk for hosting or promoting content could lead to major changes at sites, including Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube, to name a few.

    The litigation has produced some of the most intense rhetoric in years from the tech sector about the potential impact on the internet’s future. US lawmakers, civil society groups and more than two dozen states have also jumped into the debate with filings at the Court.

    At the heart of the legal battle is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a nearly 30-year-old federal law that courts have repeatedly said provide broad protections to tech platforms but that has since come under scrutiny alongside growing criticism of Big Tech’s content moderation decisions.

    The law has critics on both sides of the aisle. Many Republican officials allege that Section 230 gives social media platforms a license to censor conservative viewpoints. Prominent Democrats, including President Joe Biden, have argued Section 230 prevents tech giants from being held accountable for spreading misinformation and hate speech.

    In recent years, some in Congress have pushed for changes to Section 230 that might expose tech platforms to more liability, along with proposals to amend US antitrust rules and other bills aimed at reining in dominant tech platforms. But those efforts have largely stalled, leaving the Supreme Court as the likeliest source of change in the coming months to how the United States regulates digital services.

    Rulings in the cases are expected by the end of June.

    The case involving Google zeroes in on whether it can be sued because of its subsidiary YouTube’s algorithmic promotion of terrorist videos on its platform.

    According to the plaintiffs in the case — the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in a 2015 ISIS attack in Paris — YouTube’s targeted recommendations violated a US antiterrorism law by helping to radicalize viewers and promote ISIS’s worldview.

    The allegation seeks to carve out content recommendations so that they do not receive protections under Section 230, potentially exposing tech platforms to more liability for how they run their services.

    Google and other tech companies have said that that interpretation of Section 230 would increase the legal risks associated with ranking, sorting and curating online content, a basic feature of the modern internet. Google has claimed that in such a scenario, websites would seek to play it safe by either removing far more content than is necessary, or by giving up on content moderation altogether and allowing even more harmful material on their platforms.

    Friend-of-the-court filings by Craigslist, Microsoft, Yelp and others have suggested that the stakes are not limited to algorithms and could also end up affecting virtually anything on the web that might be construed as making a recommendation. That might mean even average internet users who volunteer as moderators on various sites could face legal risks, according to a filing by Reddit and several volunteer Reddit moderators. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden and former California Republican Rep. Chris Cox, the original co-authors of Section 230, argued to the Court that Congress’ intent in passing the law was to give websites broad discretion to moderate content as they saw fit.

    The Biden administration has also weighed in on the case. In a brief filed in December, it argued that Section 230 does protect Google and YouTube from lawsuits “for failing to remove third-party content, including the content it has recommended.” But, the government’s brief argued, those protections do not extend to Google’s algorithms because they represent the company’s own speech, not that of others.

    The second case, Twitter v. Taamneh, will decide whether social media companies can be sued for aiding and abetting a specific act of international terrorism when the platforms have hosted user content that expresses general support for the group behind the violence without referring to the specific terrorist act in question.

    The plaintiffs in the case — the family of Nawras Alassaf, who was killed in an ISIS attack in Istanbul in 2017 — have alleged that social media companies including Twitter had knowingly aided ISIS in violation of a US antiterrorism law by allowing some of the group’s content to persist on their platforms despite policies intended to limit that type of content.

    Twitter has said that just because ISIS happened to use the company’s platform to promote itself does not constitute Twitter’s “knowing” assistance to the terrorist group, and that in any case the company cannot be held liable under the antiterror law because the content at issue in the case was not specific to the attack that killed Alassaf. The Biden administration, in its brief, has agreed with that view.

    Twitter had also previously argued that it was immune from the suit thanks to Section 230.

    Other tech platforms such as Meta and Google have argued in the case that if the Court finds the tech companies cannot be sued under US antiterrorism law, at least under these circumstances, it would avoid a debate over Section 230 altogether in both cases, because the claims at issue would be tossed out.

    In recent years, however, several Supreme Court justices have shown an active interest in Section 230, and have appeared to invite opportunities to hear cases related to the law. Last year, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch wrote that new state laws, such as Texas’s that would force social media platforms to host content they would rather remove, raise questions of “great importance” about “the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

    A number of petitions are currently pending asking the Court to review the Texas law and a similar law passed by Florida. The Court last month delayed a decision on whether to hear those cases, asking instead for the Biden administration to submit its views.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US conducts helicopter raid in Syria capturing ISIS official | CNN Politics

    US conducts helicopter raid in Syria capturing ISIS official | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The US military and Syrian Democratic Forces conducted a helicopter raid in eastern Syria early Saturday, capturing an ISIS official, according to a statement from US Central Command.

    Batar, “an ISIS Syria Province Official involved in planning attacks on SDF-guarded detention centers and manufacturing improvised explosive devices,” was captured in the raid, CENTCOM said in the statement.

    The US did not provide any additional information or evidence regarding its claims about Batar.

    No civilians, SDF or US forces were killed or injured in the raid, according to CENTCOM.

    The development comes on the heels of an earlier helicopter raid in Syria on Thursday night that the US military said killed Hamza al-Homsi, a senior ISIS leader, as well as wounded four US troops and a working dog.

    Officials told CNN that US forces were “close to” al-Homsi when an explosion occurred, killing al-Homsi and wounding the US service members. It is unclear at this point if the explosion was the result of a suicide vest, a booby trap or something else, two officials said.

    Separately, US Central Command said in a statement Saturday evening that two rockets had landed near a coalition base in northeast Syria.

    No US or coalition troops were injured and no damage to equipment or infrastructure occurred during the rocket attack that targeted Green Village, a coalition base in northeast Syria.

    US forces are investigating the incident.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 2/18: CBS Saturday Morning

    2/18: CBS Saturday Morning

    [ad_1]

    2/18: CBS Saturday Morning – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Senior ISIS leader killed, 4 U.S. troops wounded in northeast Syria raid; The Dish: The history of Bern’s Steakhouse .

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CBS Evening News, Febraury 17, 2023

    CBS Evening News, Febraury 17, 2023

    [ad_1]

    CBS Evening News, Febraury 17, 2023 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    U.S. troops hurt in raid that killed ISIS leader; Young football star uses fame to help foster kids.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • U.S. troops hurt in raid that killed ISIS leader

    U.S. troops hurt in raid that killed ISIS leader

    [ad_1]

    U.S. troops hurt in raid that killed ISIS leader – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Senior ISIS leader Hamza al-Homsi was killed, and four American service members and a working dog were wounded, in a helicopter raid in northeast Syria, the U.S. military said Friday. David Martin has the latest.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Report: Melania Trump Was Inexplicably in the Situation Room for the 2019 ISIS Raid, Told Trump to “Talk About the Dog” Afterward

    Report: Melania Trump Was Inexplicably in the Situation Room for the 2019 ISIS Raid, Told Trump to “Talk About the Dog” Afterward

    [ad_1]

    For most of her time as first lady, Melania Trump gave off the vibe that she’d literally rather be anywhere else, a conclusion lots of people came to thanks to (1) that “I Really Don’t Care” jacket, (2) the “Who gives a fuck about Christmas stuff and decoration?” recording, and (3) her refusal to try and stop the brutal January 6 attack on the Capitol because she reportedly was busy photographing rugs. (Also, her seeming disdain for her husband, the not-happy tears she reportedly cried after he won, and the fact that she delayed her move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for nearly five months were pretty good indications.) But a new report suggests that the former first lady may have been more intimately involved in matters of government than previously thought.

    In a new book set for release this week by former acting defense secretary Christopher Miller, the ex-Trump-administration official writes that Melania was, inexplicably, in the Situation Room during the US’s 2019 ISIS raid that resulted in the death of then ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. According to Miller, Melania was there with the president, Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, among others. He writes: “Her presence was unexpected, to say the least. I wondered how it would play in the press if word got out that the first lady had popped in to watch a major military operation,” according to a copy of the memoir that was viewed by The Hill.

    As we’ve known for several years now, al-Baghdadi blew himself up after a military dog named Conan led troops into the ISIS leader’s compound and had him surrounded. (The blast also killed two of al-Baghdadi’s children and two of his wives.) But according to Miller, it was Melania who came up with the idea about how to tell the American people about the mission. “You should talk about the dog,” Miller said she told the president. “Everyone loves dogs.”

    Everyone, of course, except Donald Trump, who has a well-established disdain for animals in general and dogs in particular. (The only president in more than a century to live in the White House without a pet, Trump’s ex-wife Ivana wrote in her 2017 memoir that “Donald was not a dog fan,” and that her poodle, Chappy, would “bark at him territorially” whenever he got near her closet. Trump also has a long history of denigrating ex-employees and other perceived enemies by comparing them to dogs, tweeting that his enemies have “choked like a dog,” been “dumped like a dog,” been “fired like a dog,” and, our personal favorite, been “kicked out of the ABC News debate like a dog.”)

    Nevertheless, Trump chose to listen to his third wife, which apparently led to him excitedly tweeting that Conan was a “wonderful dog” who did a “GREAT JOB” on behalf of the United States, and sharing a photoshopped image of him awarding Conan the medal of honor and calling him an “AMERICAN HERO.” Later, he invited Conan for an official visit to the White House wherein he told reporters, “The dog is incredible. Actually incredible. We spent some good time with it. So brilliant and so smart.” Later, he added that “Conan was very badly hurt as you know, and they thought maybe he was not going to recover. Recovered very quickly and has since gone on very important raids.” Naturally, he also “joked” about siccing Conan on a a member of the free press known for asking tough questions, saying, “It’s trained that if you open your mouths you will be attacked. You ought to be very, very careful.”

    Yet perhaps the most surprising turn of events, given what we now know about Melania’s reported role in all this? That she answered a curt and totally unambiguous “no” when asked if she was interested in adopting Conan for her son. That’s right, not even an “I’ll think about it!”

    Anyway, this revelation obviously raises more questions than it answers, such as, how many other matters of grave national security did the then first lady sit in on, and will she be spearheading any overseas military operations in a potential second term?

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • New York City bike path killer convicted in terror trial

    New York City bike path killer convicted in terror trial

    [ad_1]

    New York City bike path killer convicted in terror trial – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    A federal jury convicted an ISIS-inspired terrorist of killing eight people by ramming into them on a bike path with a rented truck in New York City. He faces a possible death sentence for the 2017 attack.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link