ReportWire

Tag: national security

  • Schiff says January 6 committee will decide what goes in the final report ‘in a collaborative manner’ | CNN Politics

    Schiff says January 6 committee will decide what goes in the final report ‘in a collaborative manner’ | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, who also sits on the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, said Sunday that he doesn’t believe the committee’s upcoming report would focus almost entirely on Donald Trump.

    Schiff, a California Democrat, told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union,” that he doesn’t believe a recent Washington Post story about how the contents of the report could potentially leave out investigations in other areas.

    “No, I mean – I certainly hope not,” Schiff said. “I would like to see our report be as broad and inclusive as possible. We are discussing as a committee among the members what belongs in the body of the report, what belongs in the appendices of the report, what is beyond the scope of our investigation, and we’ll reach those decisions in a collaborative manner.”

    Schiff also defended the committee in response to a statement from Wyoming Republican Rep. Liz Cheney’s spokesperson accusing staffers of trying to slip “liberal biases” into the report.

    “I don’t think the back and forth is particularly helpful to the committee and I don’t want to engage in it. We’re gonna get to consensus on the report. We’re very close to that now. We’re close to the putting down the pen,” Schiff said.

    Bash asked about tension surrounding Cheney, asking Schiff about a quote in the Post story in which one former staffer said that people working for the committee became “discouraged” when they felt the investigation had become a “Cheney 2024 campaign affair.”

    “I’ve never viewed it that way,” Schiff said, defending Cheney. “And I think her role on the committee has been indispensable. I have tremendous respect for her and for (Illinois Rep.) Adam Kinzinger. They’ve shown a lot of courage and backbone, something in very short supply in the GOP these days. So the committee would not have been the same without both of their participation and I have nothing but respect for both of them.”

    Schiff also responded to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy repeatedly saying he plans to strip Schiff of his committees if he becomes Speaker in the next Congress.

    “Kevin McCarthy has no ideology, has no core set of beliefs. It’s very hard to not only get to 218 that way, it’s even more difficult to keep 218. That’s his problem,” Schiff said. “So he will misrepresent my record, he’ll misrepresent (California Rep.) Eric Swalwell or (Minnesota Rep.) Ilhan Omar, whatever he needs to do to get the votes of the QAnon caucus within his conference.”

    This comes as McCarthy promised he would strip power from Democrats, vowing to kick Omar off the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Swalwell and Schiff off the House Intelligence Committee.

    When asked about comments from Rep. Jim Comer of Kentucky, likely the next chairman of the House Oversight Committee, blaming Schiff for why he doesn’t believe in the credibility of congressional investigations, Schiff defended himself.

    “Comer doesn’t believe in the Russia investigation, he doesn’t believe in Ukraine investigation, he doesn’t believe in the investigation of January 6. And why? Because those were investigations of the serial abuse of power by Donald Trump. And Comer and (likely next House Judiciary Chairman Jim) Jordan and McCarthy will do nothing but carry Donald Trump’s water,” Schiff said.

    When asked if he would comply with a GOP subpoena in the new Congress, Schiff said: “We’ll have to consider the validity of the subpoena. … But I would certainly view my obligation, the administration’s obligation, to follow the law. And the fact that they have disrespected the law is not a precedent I would hope that would be broadly followed, but we’ll have to look at the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy in what they do.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Al-Shabaab terror attack targets Mogadishu hotel frequented by Somali lawmakers, police say | CNN

    Al-Shabaab terror attack targets Mogadishu hotel frequented by Somali lawmakers, police say | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Mogadishu
    CNN
     — 

    The al Qaeda linked terror group al-Shabaab has carried out a suicide attack and stormed a central Mogadishu hotel frequented by Somalia’s ministers and members of parliament, Somali police said Sunday.

    Al-Shabaab stormed the Villa Rose hotel near Somalia’s presidential palace following a suicide bombing at the gate at 8 p.m. local time (noon ET), according to police.

    Capt. Bishar Ahmed confirmed to CNN that a major attack occurred at the hotel, which lies in a heavily protected zone in downtown Mogadishu, where the state house, ministries and a high-security intelligence prison are also located.

    Adam Aw Hirsi, the state minister for the environment, said he escaped the attack.

    Police have not released details on the number of casualties. Al-Shabaab claimed responsibility for the attack.

    Somalia’s armed forces, backed by the United States, have been carrying out a military campaign against the group since August in parts of southern and central Somalia.

    In May, US President Joe Biden decided to redeploy troops to Somalia in support of the local government and to counter al-Shabaab. The move reversed a decision by former President Donald Trump to withdraw all US troops from the country.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Prior 2021 arrest of Colorado Springs gunman puts spotlight on the politics of red flag laws | CNN

    Prior 2021 arrest of Colorado Springs gunman puts spotlight on the politics of red flag laws | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The prior arrest of the 22-year-old suspected gunman who allegedly opened fire in a Colorado Springs LGBTQ nightclub last weekend has put the spotlight on a state law which can be utilized to temporarily remove gun access from those deemed a danger to themselves or others.

    Colorado’s controversial red flag law, also known as an extreme risk protection order, allows law enforcement, family members or a roommate to petition a judge to temporarily seize a person’s firearms if they are deemed a risk. But one caveat is they must start the process.

    If the public is uninformed of the potential risk, or rejects gun control measures, or law enforcement refuses to enforce the law, it could be rendered useless, some observers said.

    The year before Anderson Lee Aldrich, whose attorneys say uses they/them pronouns, allegedly entered Club Q with an AR-style weapon and a handgun, killing five people and injuring at least 19 others, they were arrested in June 2021 on two counts of felony menacing and three counts of first-degree kidnapping, according to a news release from the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office at the time.

    Aldrich allegedly threatened to harm their mother with a homemade bomb and other weapons. But no charges were filed, and the case has since been sealed. It is unclear why the records were sealed.

    When asked last week why the red flag law was not used in Aldrich’s case, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser said it was “too early” to say.

    “I don’t have enough information to know exactly what the officers knew,” Weiser said.

    The sheriff’s office did not respond to requests for comment, but it does not appear that anyone, including law enforcement, triggered the process to obtain an extreme risk protection order after Aldrich allegedly made the threat.

    Law enforcement sources told CNN the suspect purchased the two weapons brought to Club Q, however, police have not provided details about when the transaction took place. Aldrich’s arrest in connection to the bomb threat would not have shown up in background checks, according to the law enforcement sources. 

    It is unclear whether the state’s red flag law could have been used in Aldrich’s case, or if, ultimately, it would have prevented the mass shooting last weekend.

    Following the 2021 arrest, there was an indication Aldrich was someone who posed a risk of harm, Jeffrey Swanson, a professor at Duke University School of Medicine Duke University School of Medicine who led the research group that published the first evaluations of red flag laws, told CNN.

    “The law could have been used. It’s a great sort of parable of how you can pass a law and if it’s not implemented or used, it’s not going to do any good,” he continued.

    Red flag laws can be useful in cases where an individual shows an inclination to harm themselves or others or have had encounters with police, but charges were never pursued, according to Swanson. 

    “It’s designed for cases where there’s a clear indication of someone who poses an imminent risk to others or themselves, but otherwise would be qualified to buy a gun,” he said.

    The law allows for a type of restraining order, which does not have any criminal penalties associated with it, unless a person violates the order, according to Allison Anderman, senior counsel and director of local policy at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

    Under the law, a court can issue an order valid for up to a year, restraining a person from accessing guns if the petitioner has met the “standard of proof” to demonstrate a credible and substantial risk, said Anderman, who worked with Colorado lawmakers as they were drafting the bill.

    “It’s minimally invasive, yet it restrains a person from obtaining lethal weapons if they’re in a period of crisis,” Anderman told CNN. “And when the laws are used, they work.”

    Extreme risk laws have been shown to reduce firearm suicide rates in Connecticut by 14% and Indiana by 7.5%, according to the Giffords Law Center, data up to 2015.

    After the 2021 arrest, Aldrich was booked into the El Paso County Jail, the same facility where they were transferred on Tuesday after the Club Q shooting. El Paso County, home to Colorado Springs, has openly rejected the state’s red flag law.

    During the debate in 2019 over the Colorado bill, opponents argued the law would allow vindictive people to take guns away from others for no good reason, CNN previously reported.

    The formal legal process to temporarily remove a person’s firearms if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others under the state’s law, which went into effect in 2020, has never been initiated by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, according to reporting by The Colorado Sun.

    Sgt. Jason Garrett, a spokesman for the sheriff’s office, told the Sun Wednesday the office has never requested an extreme risk protection order but did not respond to a question asking why it has not been used, according to the Sun.

    El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder, who declined an interview request from The Sun, publicly denounced the law in 2019, telling CNN affiliate KOAA that it violates citizens’ constitutional rights. 

    “We’re going to be taking personal property away from people without having due process,” Elder told KOAA. 

    “We’re not going to pursue these on our own, meaning the sheriff’s office isn’t going to run over and try to get a court order,” Elder told KOAA in 2019. However, Elder said if a judge issues an order, “then it is up to law enforcement to execute that order.”

    CNN has reached out to the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office for comment but did not receive a response.

    In 2019, a year before the law came into effect, the Board of El Paso County Commissioners approved a resolution to designate the county a so-called Second Amendment Sanctuary. The county was among dozens in the state to make the declaration, pledging to “actively resist” the bill, arguing it violates Second Amendment rights.

    “It’s a highly suspect action from beginning to end,” said Robert Spitzer, a professor in the political science department at SUNY Cortland, referring to the county’s decision to declare itself a Second Amendment Sanctuary. “But it raises the question of whether the police, if they had information, would be willing to take action on their own.”

    Spitzer said the Second Amendment Sanctuary movement, prompted by the enactment of the red flag law in Colorado, “really has nothing to do with actual law and a lot more to do with a statement of political defiance.”

    There is a “very big question mark” on whether the sanctuary declaration had a tangible effect on law enforcement in the county or not, Spitzer said. “But the implication certainly suggests that it could have,” he added.

    One of the major reasons red flag laws are not enforced is because people are not aware of them or do not know what steps to take when someone shows signs of dangerous behavior.

    “It’s incumbent on the stakeholders, officials in a state when a law is passed, to have careful thought and some investment and thinking about how to implement this,” said Swanson. “It involves educating the right people about it and law enforcement are key.”

    In his response to a question about red flag laws last week, after the Club Q shooting, Colorado Attorney General Weiser said state officials are “working hard to educate and to bring more awareness about the Red Flag Law.” 

    “We’ve got to do better and we’re going to work on educating law enforcement to make sure that again, for everyone who is [a] responsible gun owner, this red flag law is not about you. This is about people who are dangerous, who we know should not have firearms,” Weiser added.

    Another barrier to the law can be police discretion, according to Spritzer. The nature of policing relies on a “great deal of discretion,” which allows officers to decide whether to give a speeding ticket, for example, or not to use an existing law because they don’t support it.

    “It opens the door to perhaps not enforcing laws that could have a profound effect on people’s lives and safety,” Spritzer said.

    People who have an involuntary commitment history from years ago are banned from buying or possessing firearms, even if they aren’t dangerous. But those who are alienated, display anger, impulsivity or an inclination to harm others might not have a record that disqualifies them from buying a gun, Swanson said.

    “What do we know about people who have impulsive anger and possess a gun? If you could think about that compared to the tiny group of people who are getting these risk protection orders, there’s a long way to go,” Swanson said.

    “It’s just too small a pebble to make much of a ripple in such a big pond,” he added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Far-right Ben-Gvir to be Israel’s national security minister

    Far-right Ben-Gvir to be Israel’s national security minister

    [ad_1]

    JERUSALEM — Extremist politician Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has a long record of anti-Arab rhetoric and stunts, will become Israel’s next minister of national security, according to the first of what are expected to be several coalition deals struck by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.

    Likud announced the agreement with Ben-Gvir’s Jewish Power party on Friday.

    Negotiations with three other potential far-right and ultra-Orthodox coalition partners are ongoing. If successful, Netanyahu would return to the prime minister’s office and preside over the most right-wing and religious government in Israel’s history.

    The awarding of the sensitive role to Ben-Gvir raises concerns of a further escalation in Israeli-Palestinian tensions. Ben-Gvir and his allies hope to grant immunity to Israeli soldiers who shoot at Palestinians, deport rival lawmakers and impose the death penalty on Palestinians convicted of attacks on Jews.

    Ben-Gvir is the disciple of a racist rabbi, Meir Kahane, who was banned from Parliament and whose Kach party was branded a terrorist group by the United States before he was assassinated in New York in 1990.

    Ahead of Israel’s Nov. 1 election, Ben-Gvir grabbed headlines for his anti-Palestinian speeches and stunts, including brandishing a pistol and encouraging police to open fire on Palestinian stone-throwers in a tense Jerusalem neighborhood.

    Before becoming a lawyer and entering politics, he was convicted of offenses that include inciting racism and supporting a terrorist organization.

    In his new role, he would be in charge of the police, among other things, enabling him to implement some of the hard-line policies against the Palestinians he has advocated for years.

    As part of the coalition deal, the current Ministry of Internal Security would be renamed Ministry of National Security and would be given expanded powers, Likud said Friday.

    As head of the ministry, Ben-Gvir would oversee the police and the paramilitary border police who operate alongside Israeli soldiers in Palestinian population centers.

    Likud lawmaker Yariv Levin praised the agreement, which was signed Thursday, as “the first agreement on the way to establishing a stable right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu.”

    Ben-Gvir first entered parliament in 2021, after his Jewish Power party merged with the Religious Zionism party. Ben-Gvir’s closest political ally, Religious Zionism leader Bezalel Smotrich, is conducting separate negotiations with Likud, which emerged as the largest party in the elections.

    Netanyahu has balked at some of the demands, such as Smotrich seeking the defense ministry. Talks currently focus on the terms under which Smotrich would become finance minister.

    ———

    This story corrects the spelling of lawmaker Yariv Levin’s first name. It is Yariv, not Yaron.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US bans Huawei, ZTE equipment sales amid Chinese spying fears | CNN

    US bans Huawei, ZTE equipment sales amid Chinese spying fears | CNN

    [ad_1]

    The Biden administration has banned approvals of new telecommunications equipment from China’s Huawei Technologies and ZTE because they pose “an unacceptable risk” to US national security.

    The US Federal Communications Commission said on Friday it had adopted the final rules, which also bar the sale or import of equipment made by China’s surveillance equipment maker Dahua Technology, video surveillance firm Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology and telecoms firm Hytera Communications.

    The move represents Washington’s latest crackdown on the Chinese tech giants amid fears that Beijing could use Chinese tech companies to spy on Americans.

    “These new rules are an important part of our ongoing actions to protect the American people from national security threats involving telecommunications,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement.

    Huawei declined to comment. ZTE, Dahua, Hikvision and Hytera did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Rosenworcel circulated the proposed measure, which effectively bars the firms from selling new equipment in the United States, to the other three commissioners for final approval last month.

    The FCC said in June 2021 it was considering banning all equipment authorizations for all companies on the covered list.

    That came after a March 2021 designation of five Chinese companies on the so-called “covered list” as posing a threat to national security under a 2019 law aimed at protecting US communications networks: Huawei, ZTE, Hytera Communications Corp Hikvision and Dahua.

    All four commissioners at the agency, including two Republicans and two Democrats, supported Friday’s move.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US FCC bans sales, import of Chinese tech from Huawei, ZTE

    US FCC bans sales, import of Chinese tech from Huawei, ZTE

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. is banning the sale of communications equipment made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE and restricting the use of some China-made video surveillance systems, citing an “unacceptable risk” to national security.

    The five-member Federal Communications Commission said Friday it has voted unanimously to adopt new rules that will block the importation or sale of certain technology products that pose security risks to U.S. critical infrastructure. It’s the latest in a years-long escalation of U.S. restrictions of Chinese technology that began with President Donald Trump and has continued under President Joe Biden’s administration.

    “The FCC is committed to protecting our national security by ensuring that untrustworthy communications equipment is not authorized for use within our borders, and we are continuing that work here,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, in a prepared statement.

    Huawei declined comment Friday. Along with Huawei and ZTE, the order affects products made by companies such as Hikvision and Dahua, makers of widely used video surveillance cameras.

    The FCC’s order applies to future authorizations of equipment, though the agency leaves open the possibility it could revoke previous authorizations.

    “Our unanimous decision represents the first time in FCC history that we have voted to prohibit the authorization of new equipment based on national security concerns,” tweeted Brendan Carr, a Republican FCC commissioner.

    Carr added that as “a result of our order, no new Huawei or ZTE equipment can be approved. And no new Dahua, Hikvision, or Hytera gear can be approved unless they assure the FCC that their gear won’t be used for public safety, security of government facilities, & other national security purposes.”

    Hikvision said in a statement that its video products “present no security threat” to the U.S. but the FCC’s decision “will do a great deal to make it more harmful and more expensive for US small businesses, local authorities, school districts, and individual consumers to protect themselves, their homes, businesses and property.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US FCC bans sales, import of Chinese tech from Huawei, ZTE

    US FCC bans sales, import of Chinese tech from Huawei, ZTE

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. is banning the sale of communications equipment made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE and restricting the use of some China-made video surveillance systems, citing an “unacceptable risk” to national security

    WASHINGTON — The U.S. is banning the sale of communications equipment made by Chinese companies Huawei and ZTE and restricting the use of some China-made video surveillance systems, citing an “unacceptable risk” to national security.

    The five-member Federal Communications Commission said Friday it has voted unanimously to adopt new rules that will block the importation or sale of certain technology products that pose security risks to U.S. critical infrastructure. It’s the latest in a years-long escalation of U.S. restrictions of Chinese technology that began with President Donald Trump and has continued under President Joe Biden’s administration.

    “The FCC is committed to protecting our national security by ensuring that untrustworthy communications equipment is not authorized for use within our borders, and we are continuing that work here,” said FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, in a prepared statement.

    Along with Huawei and ZTE, the order affects products made by companies such as Hikvision and Dahua, makers of widely used video surveillance cameras.

    The FCC’s order applies to future authorizations of equipment, though the agency leaves open the possibility it could revoke previous authorizations.

    “Our unanimous decision represents the first time in FCC history that we have voted to prohibit the authorization of new equipment based on national security concerns,” tweeted Brendan Carr, a Republican FCC commissioner.

    Carr added that as “a result of our order, no new Huawei or ZTE equipment can be approved. And no new Dahua, Hikvision, or Hytera gear can be approved unless they assure the FCC that their gear won’t be used for public safety, security of government facilities, & other national security purposes.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • UK bans Chinese surveillance cameras from ‘sensitive’ sites | CNN Business

    UK bans Chinese surveillance cameras from ‘sensitive’ sites | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN Business
     — 

    Hikvision, a leading Chinese surveillance company, has denied suggestions that it poses a threat to Britain’s national security after the UK government banned the use of its camera systems at “sensitive” sites.

    The restrictions, announced Thursday, will prevent authorities from installing technology that is produced by companies subject to China’s National Intelligence Law, which requires Chinese citizens and organizations to cooperate with the country’s intelligence and security services.

    In a statement to CNN Business on Friday, Hikvision said it was “categorically false to represent Hikvision as a threat to national security.”

    The company said it was hoping to engage with UK officials “urgently” to understand the decision, and had previously spoken with the UK government to clear up what it saw as misunderstandings about its business.

    “Hikvision is an equipment manufacturer that has no visibility into end users’ video data,” the Hangzhou-based company said. “Hikvision cannot access end users’ video data and cannot transmit data from end-users to third parties. We do not manage end-user databases, nor do we sell cloud storage in the UK.”

    In a statement to the UK parliament on Thursday, Cabinet Office Minister Oliver Dowden said that after a security review, government departments had been instructed to stop deploying equipment produced by companies that are subject to the National Intelligence Law.

    Dowden cited “the threat to the UK and the increasing capability and connectivity of these systems,” without specifying further.

    Government departments have also been advised to consider whether to “remove and replace such equipment where it is deployed on sensitive sites rather than awaiting any scheduled upgrades,” he said. The minister added that departments could review whether sites not deemed sensitive should also be taking similar measures.

    The move comes months after UK lawmakers called for a ban on technology by Hikvision and Dahua, another Chinese surveillance camera maker, citing allegations that the firms had been involved in enabling human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang.

    The United States in 2019 placed Hikvision and other Chinese companies on a trade blacklist, prohibiting them from importing US technology over similar allegations.

    In a statement released in July by Big Brother Watch, a British nonprofit group that investigates the use of surveillance systems, 67 members of the UK parliament said the Chinese companies should be prohibited from selling their products in the country.

    Big Brother Watch said at the time that it had “found that the majority of public bodies use CCTV cameras made by Hikvision or Dahua, including 73% of councils across the UK, 57% of secondary schools in England, 6 out of 10 National Health Service Trusts, as well as UK universities and police forces.”

    Earlier this year, a UK health minister disclosed that there were 82 Hikvision products in use in his department.

    Hikvision, in its statement, said its cameras were compliant with UK laws and “subject to strict security requirements.”

    Dahua did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The US-China chip war is spilling over to Europe | CNN Business

    The US-China chip war is spilling over to Europe | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN Business
     — 

    Two European chip deals have run into trouble over their links with China, a sign of concern spreading in the West over potential Chinese control of critical infrastructure.

    Last week, the new owner of Britain’s biggest chipmaker was ordered to unwind its takeover, just days after another chip factory sale was blocked in Germany. Both transactions were hit by national security concerns, and had involved acquisitions by Chinese-owned companies.

    In the United Kingdom, Nexperia, a Dutch subsidiary of Shanghai-listed semiconductor maker Wingtech, was told by the government to sell at least 86% of its stake in Newport Wafer Fab, more than a year after taking control of the factory. Staffers have since been protesting the decision, saying it puts nearly 600 jobs at risk.

    In Germany, the economic ministry barred Elmos Semiconductor, an automotive chipmaker, from selling its factory in the city of Dortmund to Silex, a Swedish subsidiary of China’s Sai Microelectronics.

    Chipmaking was already emerging as a new front in US-China tensions. Now the two troubled deals illustrate how the pressure is also rising in Europe, particularly as Western officials face calls for key sectors to be kept out of Chinese control.

    “These decisions mark a shift towards tougher stances regarding Chinese investment in critical industries in Europe,” said Xiaomeng Lu, director of geo‑technology at Eurasia Group.

    “US pressure definitely contributed to these decisions. [A] growing sense of technology sovereignty also likely prompted these moves — governments around the world are increasingly [viewing the] semiconductors industry as a strategic resource and seek to protect them from foreign takeovers.”

    Legal experts said the two decisions were notable because each deal was initially thought to have been cleared.

    The Newport Wafer case is “the first completed acquisition” that needs to be unwound under a UK national security and investment (NSI) act, which took full effect in January, according to Ian Giles, head of antitrust and competition for Europe, the Middle East and Asia for Norton Rose.

    Nexperia said last week that it was “shocked” by the decision, and that “the UK government chose not to enter into a meaningful dialogue with Nexperia or even visit the Newport site.”

    The company added that it had offered to avoid “activities of potential concern, and to provide the UK government with direct control and participation in the management of Newport,” a 28-acre site in south Wales.

    The factory makes silicon wafers, the basis for making computer chips. Many of its products eventually power cars and medical equipment. Nexperia has indicated that workers at the facility now face an uncertain future.

    In an open letter to the UK government last Thursday, the Nexperia Newport Staff Association said that it was “in disbelief” that employees’ livelihoods had been “put in jeopardy in the run-up to Christmas.”

    “This is clearly a deeply political decision,” the group wrote, rejecting the idea that the deal would undermine British security. “You must see sense and protect our jobs by allowing Nexperia to keep their Newport factory.”

    For Elmos, German authorities had initially indicated that they would issue a conditional approval, and even shared a draft approval after an intense review process lasting about 10 months, the company said in a statement following the injunction.

    Tim Schaper, head of antitrust and competition for Germany at Norton Rose, said government intervention was also significant given that “Elmos’ technology is said to be quite old, state of the art in the 1990s, and allegedly not of great industrial importance.”

    “The transaction became the plaything of a public debate about Chinese investors’ acquiring stakes in key German technologies,” he said.

    A company sign of Elmos Semiconductor, seen on Nov. 9 in the German city of Dortmund.

    It’s possible that regulators were concerned about an outflow of technical know how, according to Alexander Rinne, the Munich-based head of international law firm Milbank’s European antitrust practice.

    “Elmos is known for making chips for the automotive sector, which is Germany’s core industry and the pride of the country,” he said in an interview.

    Elmos and Nexperia both declined interview requests. A Nexperia spokesperson told CNN Business on Tuesday that it was “considering its options regarding the UK government’s decision.”

    Chips are a growing source of tension between the United States and China. Washington has declared a shortage of the materials a national security issue, and highlighted the importance of remaining competitive in advanced technology capabilities.

    This year, the United States ramped up its own restrictions and pressed allies to enact their own, according to Lu. In August, the US government ordered two top chipmakers, Nvidia

    (NVDA)
    and AMD

    (AMD)
    , to halt exports of certain high-performance chips to China.

    Two months later, the Biden administration unveiled sweeping export controls that banned Chinese companies from buying advanced chips and chip-making equipment without a license. The rules also restricted the ability of American citizens or US green card holders to provide support for the development or production of chips at certain manufacturing facilities in China.

    The pressure is mounting. On Monday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg urged the West to “be careful not to create new dependencies” on China. Speaking at a NATO parliamentary assembly in Madrid, Stoltenberg said he was seeing “growing Chinese efforts” to control Western critical infrastructure, supply chains, and key industrial sectors.

    “We cannot give authoritarian regimes any chance to exploit our vulnerabilities and undermine us,” he said.

    China has pushed back on the handling of the two European semiconductor cases.

    “We firmly oppose the UK’s move, and call on the UK to respect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies and provide a fair, just, and (a) non-discriminatory business environment,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning told a press briefing last Friday when asked about the Newport Wafer order. “The UK has overstretched the concept of national security and abused state power.”

    Zhao Lijian, another Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, called on Germany and other countries to “refrain from politicizing normal economic and trade cooperation” at a press conference earlier this month, without addressing Elmos specifically.

    Germany has shown greater scrutiny of Chinese buyers this year. Last month, a bid by Chinese state shipping giant Cosco for a stake in a Hamburg port terminal operator sparked similar controversy. Under pressure from some members of the government, the size of the investment was later limited.

    Attorneys say if the chipmakers appeal, they could face an uncertain battle that may drag on for years.

    In each case, they would need to file a challenge in court within roughly a month of regulators’ decisions, barring exceptional circumstances, according to Norton Rose.

    Both Britain and Germany have recently added rules that expand government oversight over such decisions, making outcomes harder to predict. In Germany, a change to foreign direct investment rules in 2020 meant the government can intervene in prospective deals “if there is a ‘probable impairment of public order and security,’” said Schaper.

    Previously, by contrast, it could only impose restrictions “if there was an ‘actual, sufficiently serious threat to public order and security,’” he told CNN Business.

    In the UK, the ability of the government to retroactively review deals under the NSI Act “was really something that was considered surprising and far-reaching,” said Andrea Hamilton, a London-based partner at Milbank.

    “If challenged, as Nexperia apparently intends, it will also become a test case as to [the] extent of the NSI Act’s limits,” she said.

    Elsewhere, attention is shifting to the Netherlands. The Dutch government is currently facing pressure from the United States to limit exports to China, particularly from ASML

    (ASML)
    , a semiconductor equipment maker that holds a dominant position in the lithography machine market, according to Lu at Eurasia Group.

    “It will become the next case study,” she told CNN Business.

    The Netherlands has made clear it will form its own position.

    Asked about the issue this month, Dutch Minister for Foreign Trade Liesje Schreinemacher said the country would “not copy the US export restrictions for China one-to-one.”

    “We make our own assessment,” she said in an interview with Dutch newspaper NRC.

    — CNN’s Zahid Mahmood, Rose Roobeek-Coppack and Laura He contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong finds 90-year-old cardinal guilty over pro-democracy protest fund | CNN

    Hong Kong finds 90-year-old cardinal guilty over pro-democracy protest fund | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    A 90-year-old former bishop and outspoken critic of China’s ruling Communist Party was found guilty Friday on a charge relating to his role in a relief fund for Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protests in 2019.

    Cardinal Joseph Zen and five others, including the Cantopop singer Denise Ho, contravened the Societies Ordinance by failing to register the now-defunct “612 Humanitarian Relief Fund” that was partly used to pay protesters’ legal and medical fees, the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts ruled.

    The silver-haired cardinal, who appeared in court with a walking stick, and his co-defendants had all denied the charge.

    The case is considered a marker of political freedom in Hong Kong during an ongoing crackdown on the pro-democracy movement, and comes at a sensitive time for the Vatican, which is preparing to renew a controversial deal with Beijing over the appointment of bishops in China.

    Outside the court, Zen told reporters that he hoped people wouldn’t link his conviction to religious freedom.

    “I saw many people overseas are concerned about a cardinal being arrested. It is not related to religious freedom. I am part of the fund. (Hong Kong) has not seen damage (to) its religious freedom,” Zen said.

    Zen and four other trustees of the fund – singer Ho, barrister Margaret Ng, scholar Hui Po Keung, and politician Cyd Ho – were sentenced to fines of HK$4,000 ($510) each.

    A sixth defendant, Sze Ching-wee, who was the fund’s secretary, was fined HK$2,500 ($320).

    All had initially been charged under the controversial Beijing-backed national security law for colluding with foreign forces, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Those charges were dropped and they instead faced a lesser charge under the Societies Ordinance, a century-old colonial-era law punishable with fines of up to HK$10,000 ($1,274) but not jail time for first-time offenders.

    The court heard in September that the legal fund raised the equivalent of $34.4 million through 100,000 deposits.

    In addition to providing financial aid to protesters, the fund was also used to sponsor pro-democracy rallies, such as paying for audio equipment used in 2019 during street protests to resist Beijing’s tightening grip.

    Although Zen and the other five defendants were spared from being charged under the national security law, the legislation imposed by Beijing over Hong Kong in June 2020 in a bid to quell the protests has repeatedly been used to curb dissent.

    Since the imposition of the law, most of the city’s prominent pro-democracy figures have either been arrested or gone into exile, while several independent media outlets and non-government organizations have been shuttered.

    The Hong Kong government has repeatedly denied criticism that the law – which criminalizes acts of secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces – has stifled freedoms, claiming instead it has restored order in the city after the 2019 protest movement.

    Hong Kong’s prosecution of one of Asia’s most senior clergyman has cast the relationship between Beijing and the Holy See into sharp focus.

    Zen has strongly opposed a controversial agreement struck in 2018 between the Vatican and China over the appointment of bishops. Previously both sides had demanded the final say on bishop appointments in mainland China, where religious activities are heavily monitored and sometimes banned.

    Born to Catholic parents in Shanghai in 1932, Zen fled to Hong Kong with his family to escape looming Communist rule as a teenager. He was ordained as a priest in 1961 and made Bishop of Hong Kong in 2002, before retiring in 2009.

    Known as the “conscience of Hong Kong” among his supporters, Zen has long been a prominent advocate for democracy, human rights and religious freedom. He has been on the front lines of some of the city’s most important protests, from the mass rally against national security legislation in 2003 to the “Umbrella Movement” demanding universal suffrage in 2014.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hong Kong court convicts Cardinal Zen, 5 others over fund

    Hong Kong court convicts Cardinal Zen, 5 others over fund

    [ad_1]

    HONG KONG — A 90-year-old Catholic cardinal and five others in Hong Kong were fined after being found guilty Friday of failing to register a now-defunct fund that aimed to help people arrested in the widespread protests three years ago.

    Cardinal Joseph Zen, a retired bishop and a vocal democracy advocate of the city, arrived at court in a black outfit and used a walking stick. He was first arrested in May on suspicion of colluding with foreign forces under a Beijing-imposed National Security Law. His arrest sent shockwaves through the Catholic community, although the Vatican only stated it was monitoring the development of the situation closely.

    While Zen and other activists at the trial have not yet been charged with national security-related charges, they were charged with failing to properly register the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund, which helped pay medical and legal fees for arrested protesters beginning in 2019. It ceased operations in October 2021.

    Zen, alongside singer Denise Ho, scholar Hui Po Keung, former pro-democracy lawmakers Margaret Ng and Cyd Ho, were trustees of the fund. They were each fined 4,000 Hong Kong dollars ($512). A sixth defendant, Sze Ching-wee, was the fund’s secretary and was fined HK$2500 ($320).

    The Societies Ordinance requires local organizations to register or apply for an exemption within a month of their establishment. Those who failed to do so face a fine of up to HK$10,000 ($1,273), with no jail time, upon first conviction.

    Handing down the verdict, Principal Magistrate Ada Yim ruled that the fund is considered an organization that is obliged to register as it was not purely for charity purposes.

    The National Security Law has crippled Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement since its enactment in 2020, with many activists being arrested or jailed in the semi-autonomous Chinese city. Hong Kong, a former British colony, returned to China’s rule in 1997.

    The impact of the law has also damaged faith in the future of the international financial hub, with a growing number of young professionals responding to the shrinking freedoms by emigrating overseas.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Elon Musk says he will begin restoring previously banned Twitter accounts next week | CNN Business

    Elon Musk says he will begin restoring previously banned Twitter accounts next week | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN Business
     — 

    Elon Musk said Thursday that he will begin restoring most previously banned accounts on Twitter starting next week, in his most wide-reaching move yet to undo the social media platform’s policy of permanently suspending users who repeatedly violated its rules.

    “The people have spoken,” Musk tweeted on Thursday. “Amnesty begins next week. Vox Populi, Vox Dei.”

    The announcement comes after Musk on Wednesday polled his followers about whether to offer “general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam.”

    The poll, which closed around 12:45 pm ET on Thursday, finished with 72.4% voting in favor of the proposition and 27.6% voting against. The poll garnered more than 3 million votes on Twitter.

    It is not immediately clear how Musk and his team at Twitter will sort out which accounts had been banned for illegal or spam content versus other violations, nor how many total accounts will be restored.

    Musk announced last week that he would restore the account of Donald Trump after another poll he posted on the platform ended slightly in favor of returning the former President, who had been banned following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, to the platform. Musk has also restored the accounts of several other controversial, previously banned or suspended users, including conservative Canadian podcaster Jordan Peterson, right-leaning satire website Babylon Bee, comedian Kathy Griffin and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.

    Shortly after acquiring Twitter, Musk said he would create a “content moderation council” with “widely diverse viewpoints,” and that no major content decisions would be made until it was in place. There is no evidence that such a group has been formed or was involved in Musk’s replatforming decisions. Instead, after Musk restored Trump’s account, he tweeted “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” Latin for “the voice of the people is the voice of god.”

    Prior to Musk’s takeover, Twitter typically imposed “strikes” that corresponded with suspensions for escalating periods of time when users repeatedly broke its rules against Covid-19 or civic integrity misinformation, giving users up to nine chances before they were booted from the platform. The platform also had other enforcement mechanisms — such as labeling a tweet or reducing its reach — for its additional rules including those prohibiting terrorism, threats of violence against individuals or groups of people, targeted abuse or harassment, publishing another person’s private information, and content promoting abuse or self-harm.

    Musk has previously said he disagreed with Twitter’s policy of permanent bans.

    “New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, not freedom of reach,” Musk said in a tweet last week, echoing an approach that is something of an industry standard. “Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter.”

    The decision to restore countless previously banned accounts could further alienate Twitter’s advertisers, many of whom have fled the platform in the wake of the chaos since Musk took over and out of fear that their ads could end up running alongside objectionable content. Musk has said the departure of key Twitter advertisers in recent weeks has led to a “massive drop in revenue” for the company.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pakistan to appoint former spy chief as new head of army | CNN

    Pakistan to appoint former spy chief as new head of army | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Islamabad, Pakistan
    CNN
     — 

    Pakistan on Thursday named former spy chief Lt. Gen. Syed Asim Munir as chief of the South Asian country’s army, ending weeks of speculation over an appointment that comes amid intense debate around the military’s influence on public life.

    In a Twitter post, Information Minister Marriyum Aurangzeb said Munir’s appointment would be ratified once a summary sent by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif had been signed by the country’s president.

    Munir, a former head of the country’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, will take over from Army Chief Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, who will retire on November 29 after six years in what is normally a three-year post.

    The Pakistani military is often accused of meddling in the politics of a country that has experienced numerous coups and been ruled by generals for extended periods since its formation in 1947, so the appointment of new army chiefs is often a highly politicized issue.

    Munir’s appointment may prove controversial with supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who was ousted from office in April after losing the backing of key political allies and the military amid accusations he had mismanaged the economy.

    Munir was removed from his office at the ISI during Khan’s term and the former prime minister has previously claimed – without evidence – that the Pakistani military and Sharif conspired with the United States to remove him from power. After Khan was wounded in a gun attack at a political rally in early November, he also accused a senior military intelligence officer – without evidence – of planning his assassination.

    Both the Pakistani military and US officials have denied Khan’s claims.

    Khan is yet to comment on Munir’s appointment, though his party the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) said in a tweet Thursday that he would “act according to the constitution and laws.”

    Khan aside, the new army chief will have plenty on his plate, entering office at a time when – in addition to a burgeoning economic crisis – Pakistan faces the aftermath of the worst floods in its history. He will also have to navigate the country’s notoriously rocky relationship with its neighbor India.

    On Wednesday, outgoing army chief Bajwa said the army was often criticized despite being busy “in serving the nation.” He said a major reason for this was the army’s historic “interference” in Pakistani politics, which he called “unconstitutional.”

    He said that in February this year, the military establishment had “decided to not interfere in politics” and was “adamant” in sticking to this position.

    Pakistan, a nation of 220 million, has been ruled by four different military rulers and seen three military coups since it was formed. No prime minister has ever completed a full five-year term under the present constitution of 1973.

    Uzair Younus, director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council, said the military institution “has lost so much of its reputation,” and the new chief had plenty of battles ahead.

    “In historical terms an army chief needs three months to settle into his role, the new chief might not have that privilege,” Younus said. “With ongoing political polarization there might be the temptation to intervene politically again.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • CNN projects Rep. Mary Peltola will win race for Alaska House seat, thwarting Sarah Palin’s political comeback again | CNN Politics

    CNN projects Rep. Mary Peltola will win race for Alaska House seat, thwarting Sarah Palin’s political comeback again | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Alaska Rep. Mary Peltola, the Democrat who won a special election that sent her to Congress this summer, will once again thwart former Gov. Sarah Palin’s bid for a political comeback. CNN projected Wednesday that Peltola will win the race for Alaska’s at-large House seat after the state’s ranked choice voting tabulation, defeating Palin and Republican Nick Begich III.

    CNN also projected that Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski will win reelection. She’ll defeat Republican Kelly Tshibaka and Democrat Patricia Chesbro. CNN had previously projected that a Republican would hold the seat.

    And Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy will win reelection, CNN projected. He defeats Democrat Les Gara and independent Bill Walker. Dunleavy won more than 50% of first choice votes, so ranked choice tabulation was not required.

    In Alaska, voters in 2020 approved a switch to a ranked choice voting system. It is in place in 2022 for the first time.

    Under the new system, Alaska holds open primaries and voters cast ballots for one candidate of any party, and the top four finishers advance. In the general election, voters rank those four candidates, from their first choice to their fourth choice.

    If no candidate tops 50% of the first choice votes, the state then tabulates ranked choice results – dropping the last-place finisher and shifting those votes to voters’ second choices. If, after one round of tabulation, there is still no winner, the third-place finisher is dropped and the same vote-shifting process takes place.

    SE Cupp: Palin followed fame but Alaskans were turned off (September 2022)

    Peltola first won the House seat when a similar scenario played out in the August special election to fill the remaining months of the term of the late Rep. Don Young, a Republican who died in March after representing Alaska in the House for 49 years.

    Offering herself as a supporter of abortion rights and a salmon fishing advocate, Peltola emerged as the victor in the August special election after receiving just 40% of the first-place votes. This time, she has a larger share, while Palin’s and Begich’s support has shrunk.

    The House race has showcased the unusual alliances in Alaska politics. Though Peltola is a Democrat, she is also close with Palin – whose tenure as governor overlapped with Peltola’s time as a state lawmaker in Juneau. The two have warmly praised each other. Palin has criticized the ranked choice voting system. But she never took aim at Peltola in personal terms.

    The Republicans in the race, Palin and Begich, both urged voters to “rank the red” and list the two GOP contenders first and second.

    But Peltola had quickly won over many in the state after her special election victory – in part because she has deep relationships with a number of Republicans.

    Peltola told CNN in an interview that she and Palin had bonded in Juneau over being new mothers, and that Palin’s family had given Peltola’s family its backyard trampoline when Palin resigned from the governor’s office.

    At an Alaska Federation of Natives candidate forum in October, Palin effusively praised Peltola.

    “Doggone it, I never have anything to gripe about. I just wish she’d convert on over to the other party. But other than that, love her,” Palin said of Peltola.

    Peltola’s family was also close to the family of the late Young. Peltola’s father and Young had taught school together decades ago and were hunting buddies, Peltola said in an interview.

    In the race for Alaska’s Senate seat, Murkowski, a moderate Republican, was targeted by former President Donald Trump after she voted to convict him during his impeachment trial in the wake of the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. Murkowski also broke with Trump on a number of key votes during his presidency.

    Trump endorsed Tshibaka, and a cadre of former Trump campaign officials worked on her campaign. She was also endorsed by the Alaska Republican Party, which opted to back the more conservative candidate in a state Trump won by 10 percentage points in 2020.

    But Murkowski had built a broad coalition in a state where political alliances are often more complicated than they appear. She and Peltola, had publicly said they would rank each other first in their elections.

    Chesbro, the Democrat, was among the four candidates who had advanced to the general election. Republican Buzz Kelley also advanced, but dropped out and urged his supporters to vote for Tshibaka.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Stories of Ukrainian resistance revealed after Kherson pullout | CNN

    Stories of Ukrainian resistance revealed after Kherson pullout | CNN

    [ad_1]


    Near Kherson city, Ukraine
    CNN
     — 

    Two Russian soldiers walked down a street in Kherson on a spring evening in early March, just days after Moscow captured the city. The temperature that night was still below freezing and the power was out, leaving the city in complete darkness as the soldiers made their way back to camp after a few drinks.

    As one stumbled on, the other stopped to relieve himself on the side of the pavement. Suddenly, a knife was thrust deep into the right side of his neck.

    He fell to the grass. Moments later, the second Russian soldier, inebriated and unaware, met the same fate.

    “I finished the first one immediately and then I caught up with the other and killed him on the spot,” says Archie, a Ukrainian resistance fighter who described the scene above to CNN.

    He says he moved on pure instinct.

    “I saw the orcs in uniform and I thought, why not?,” Archie adds, using a derogative term for Russians, as he walks through that same street. “There were no people or light and I seized the moment.”

    The 20-year-old is a trained mixed martial arts fighter, with nimble feet and sharp reflexes, who had previously always carried a knife for self-defense, but never killed anyone. CNN is referring to him by his call sign to protect his identity.

    “Adrenaline played its role. I didn’t have any fear or time to think,” he says. “For the first few days I felt very bad, but then I realized that they were my enemies. They came to my home to take it from me.”

    Archie’s account was backed up by Ukrainian military and intelligence sources who handled communications with him and other partisans. He was one of many resistance fighters in Kherson, a city of 290,000 people before the invasion, which Russia tried to bend but could not break.

    People in Kherson made their views clear soon after Russia took over the city on March 2 coming out onto the main square for daily protests, donning the blue and yellow Ukrainian flag.

    But Kherson, the first large city and only regional capital Russian troops were able to occupy since the start of the invasion, was an important symbol for Moscow. Dissent could not be tolerated.

    Protesters were met with tear gas and gunshots, organisers and the more outspoken residents were arrested and tortured. When peaceful demonstrations didn’t work, the people of Kherson turned to resistance and ordinary citizens like Archie started to take action on their own.

    “I wasn’t the only one in Kherson,” Archie says. “There were a lot of clever partisans. At least 10 Russians were killed every night.”

    Initially solo operations, like-minded residents began organising themselves in groups, coordinating their actions with the Ukrainian military and intelligence outside the city.

    “I have a friend with whom we would drive around the city, looking for gatherings of Russian soldiers,” he says. “We checked their patrol routes and then gave all the information to guys on the frontline and they knew who to pass onto next.”

    Russian soldiers weren’t the only ones targeted for assassination. Several Moscow-installed government officials were targeted during the eight months of the Russian occupation. Their faces were printed in posters placed all over the city, promising retribution for their collaboration with the Kremlin, in a psychological war that lasted throughout the occupation.

    Many of those promises were kept, with some of those officials gunned down and others blown up in their cars in incidents that pro-Russian local authorities described as “terrorist attacks.”

    Archie was arrested by the occupying authorities on May 9, after attending a victory day parade, celebrating the Soviet Union’s win in World War II, wearing a yellow and blue stripe on his t-shirt.

    He was taken to a local pre-trial detention facility which had been taken over by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and used to torture Ukrainian soldiers, intelligence officers and partisans, according to Archie.

    Ihor says while he was held at this Russian detention center, he spent much of his time looking out the window, day dreaming about escaping the horrors within.

    “They beat me, electrocuted me, kicked me and beat me with batons,” Archie recalls. “I can’t say they starved me, but they didn’t give much to eat.”

    “Nothing good happened there,” he said.

    Archie was lucky enough to be let go after nine days and after being forced to record a video saying he’d agreed to work with the Russian occupiers. His account of what transpired in the facility has been confirmed by Ukrainian military sources and other detainees.

    But many others never left, according to Archie and other resistance fighters, as well as Ukrainian military and intelligence sources.

    Ihor, who asked CNN not to reveal his last name for his protection, was also held at the facility.

    The Ukrainian flag now hangs atop a detention center used by Russian forces to hold and torture Ukrainian soldiers, dissidents and partisans.

    “I was kept here for 11 days and throughout that time I heard screaming from the basement,” the 29-year-old says. “People were tortured, they were beaten with sticks in the arms and legs, cattle prods, even hooked up to batteries and electrocuted or waterboarded with water.”

    Ihor was caught transporting weapons and says “luckily” he was only beaten.

    “I arrived after the time when people were beaten up to death here,” he recalls. “I was stabbed in the legs with a taser, they use it as a welcome. One of them asked what I’d been brought in for and another two of them started hitting me in the ribs.”

    Ihor and other partisans helped Ukrainian forces zero-in on this warehouse, where Russian forces had stationed military assets, and target it with artillery.

    Through his detention, Ihor was able to hide that he was a member of the Kherson resistance and that transporting weapons was not the only thing he did. Ihor says he also supplied intelligence to the Ukrainian military – an activity that would have incurred far more brutal punishment.

    “If we found something, saw it, (we) took a picture or a video (and) sent it to Ukrainian forces and then they would decide whether to hit it or not,” he explains.

    Among the coordinates he communicated to the Ukrainian military is a warehouse within Kherson city. “The Russian military kept between 20 to 30 vehicles here, there were armored trucks, armored personnel carriers and some Russians lived here,” Ihor says.

    Departing Russian forces were quick to hollow out what was left of the prized interior, but the wrecked building bears the marks of the violent strike. Most of the roof has collapsed, its walls lay shattered and broken glass still covers most of the floor. The structure remains in place but in parts its metal has been mangled by the blast.

    Ihor filmed this warehouse used by Russian forces as he walked past it, pretending to be making a phone call. His information helped Ukrainian forces target and destroy it.

    Ihor used the Telegram messaging app to communicate the building’s coordinates to his military handler, who he referred to as “the smoke.” Along with the information, he sent a video he secretly recorded.

    “I turned on the camera, pointed it at the building and then I just walked and talked on the phone while the camera was filming,” he explains. “Afterward I deleted video, of course, because if they were to stop me somewhere and check my videos and pictures there would be questions…”

    He sent the information in mid-September and, just a day later, the facility was targeted by Ukrainian artillery.

    The United States and NATO have assessed that when Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin expected its forces to be greeted as saviors, welcomed with open arms. Reality failed to live up to expectation, not just in the territories where Moscow’s armies were pushed back, but also in the areas it was able to seize.

    The strike on the warehouse which Ihor helped with, is one of many facilitated by Ukrainian partisans inside Kherson working tirelessly and under threat to disrupt Russian activities within the city.

    Eight months after it was occupied by Russia, the city of Kherson is now back in Ukrainian hands and Moscow’s armies are on the back foot, forced to withdraw from the western bank of the Dnipro river.

    But despite achieving victory here, Ukraine continues to faces almost daily crippling missile strikes almost everywhere else, all while Russian forces continue to press on in the East.

    Looking back, Ihor, father to a three-month-old daughter, says he was lucky he wasn’t caught.

    “It wasn’t hard, but it was dangerous,” he explains. “If they were to catch me filming such a thing, they would take me in and probably wouldn’t let me come out alive.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • January 6 defendant who barged into Pelosi offices during attack found guilty of multiple counts | CNN Politics

    January 6 defendant who barged into Pelosi offices during attack found guilty of multiple counts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Riley Williams, a Pennsylvania woman who barged into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s offices on January 6, 2021, was found guilty on Monday of multiple counts she faced over the Capitol attack.

    Williams was found guilty of six of the eight counts she was charged with, including assaulting or resisting an officer and disorderly conduct in the Capitol.

    A mistrial was declared on two of the remaining counts, including the government’s charge that Riley had aided and abetted in the theft of a laptop from Pelosi’s office. The jury also could not come to a unanimous decision on the charge of obstructing the certification of the electoral college, which carried a maximum sentence of 20 years.

    This is the first time a jury has not convicted a January 6 Capitol defendant of each count charged.

    Williams was detained following her conviction Monday, taking off her plaid tie before a Deputy US Marshal took her away.

    In agreeing with the Justice Department’s request that Williams be immediately locked up, Judge Amy Berman Jackson heavily reprimanded Williams and her actions on January 6.

    “She was profane, she was obnoxious and she was threatening,” Jackson said of Williams.

    “This is a person who was packed and ready to flee once before,” the judge added, saying that Williams’ father had offered her places to hide in the wake of the Capitol attack.

    Prosecutors say they are still determining whether to retry the case against Williams on the charges of obstruction and aiding and abetting in the laptop theft.

    “I don’t want to go to jail,” Williams said to her attorney Lori Ulrich, who told Williams as she was being taken away “You won. Riley, remember that. You won,” referring to the two counts the jury could not reach a unanimous decision on.

    During the trial prosecutors argued that while Williams, a 23-year-old with long amber hair, didn’t appear dangerous she in fact stirred up the mob, recruited and coordinated rioters to attack police and directed others to steal the laptop from Pelosi’s office.

    “Looks can be deceiving but evidence is not,” prosecutor Michael Gordon told the jury.

    During the trial, multiple videos were played of Riley – some of which she shared with people she knew online who gave them to law enforcement agents – inside of Pelosi’s offices allegedly yelling “take the f**king laptop” as well as pushing against officers in the Capitol with her back.

    The laptop was primarily used for conference videos and did not contain sensitive information, prosecutors said.

    Videos of Pelosi’s office during the Capitol attack showed an overturned table and broken window, rioters rummaging around, taking selfies and videos – bragging that they had reached the speaker’s office. “Where’s Nancy?” members of the mob could be heard asking, over and over again.

    Ulrich told the jury that what her client did on January 6 “was wrong,” but said she was young and simply “a girl wanting to be a somebody.”

    According to prosecutors, Williams was “consumed” by far-right white nationalist Nick Fuentes – whose internet show “she watched obsessively” – and the Stop the Steal movement, attending rallies in the lead up to January 6.

    After the riot, Williams bragged to people on the social media platform Discord that she had stolen the laptop and a gavel from the speaker’s office, none of which was true, her attorneys said.

    “Riley Williams lived in a fantasy world of sorts,” Ulrich said of her client’s online presence, where she messaged people she had never met about her alleged exploits that day, much of which was made up, according to her attorney.

    Williams will be sentenced on February 22 and, according to prosecutors, could face two to three years in prison, according to sentencing guidelines.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US Capitol Police assistant chief who oversaw intelligence operations for the department will retire | CNN Politics

    US Capitol Police assistant chief who oversaw intelligence operations for the department will retire | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    US Capitol Police Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman, who oversaw the department’s operations in the days leading up to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, is retiring from the agency, according to an internal announcement shared with CNN.

    Her last day with US Capitol Police will be February 1, 2023.

    Pittman served as the assistant chief of Protective and Intelligence Operations for Capitol Police from 2019 through mid-January of 2021. She rose to acting chief after former Chief Steven Sund abruptly left the department in the days after the January 6 insurrection.

    Despite major criticisms of intelligence breakdowns leading up to January 6, Pittman returned to that role – which oversees the physical security of the US Capitol and the intelligence operations – shortly after current Chief Tom Manger was placed in the top spot.

    She most recently served as acting chief administrative officer.

    Her career with the department began in September 2001.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawyer: Ex-Islamic State bride was child trafficking victim

    Lawyer: Ex-Islamic State bride was child trafficking victim

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — Lawyers for a British woman whose U.K. citizenship was removed after she travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State group argued Monday that she should have been treated as a child trafficking victim.

    Shamima Begum, now 23, was 15 when she and two other schoolgirls from London joined the extremist group in February 2015. Authorities revoked her British citizenship on national security grounds soon after she was found in a Syrian refugee camp in 2019.

    Begum’s lawyers launched a fresh legal challenge against the British government’s decision, arguing that officials had a legal duty to investigate whether she was a victim of trafficking when her citizenship was revoked.

    Lawyer Samantha Knights told the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on Monday that Begum was influenced by a “determined and effective ISIS propaganda machine.”

    Knights said in written submissions to the hearing that like many other young girls, Begum was recruited by the Islamic State group and transported to Syria “for the purposes of ‘sexual exploitation’ and ‘marriage’ to an adult male.”

    But James Eadie, representing the Home Office, argued the case was about national security and not about child trafficking.

    He said Begum remained in Syria for four years and only left IS-controlled territory for safety reasons, not because of “a genuine disengagement from the group.”

    Britain’s Supreme Court ruled last year that Begum could not return to the U.K. to fight her citizenship case. British media reports say she remains in a camp in northern Syria.

    On Monday, an officer with Britain’s domestic security agency, MI5, told the hearing that it was “inconceivable” that Begum would not know about what the Islamic State was doing as a terrorist organization at the time.

    The officer was only identified as Witness E and gave evidence from behind a screen.

    The hearing is set to last five days and a ruling is expected at a later date.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kinzinger says he doesn’t think McCarthy will ‘last very long’ if he becomes House speaker | CNN Politics

    Kinzinger says he doesn’t think McCarthy will ‘last very long’ if he becomes House speaker | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois lambasted House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Sunday, saying he does not think the California Republican will last long if he’s elected House speaker next year.

    “I think he has cut so many deals with bad people to get to this position that I think he’s not going to be a leader at all. I think he’ll be completely hostage to kind of the extreme wings of the Republican Party,” Kinzinger, who is retiring from Congress, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.” “And I frankly don’t think he’s going to last very long.”

    “It’s sad to see a man that I think has so much potential, just totally sell himself – he’s the one that resurrected Donald Trump the second he went to Mar-a-Lago, like a week or two after January 6,” added Kinzinger, a noted Trump critic.

    House Republicans voted last week for McCarthy to continue leading their conference following an underwhelming midterm election performance. While Republicans had anticipated big gains in the House earlier this month, they are currently on track to only hold a slim majority.

    But McCarthy beat back a long-shot challenge to his leadership position by Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, a former chairman of the hard-line conservative House Freedom Caucus. Biggs received 31 votes to McCarthy’s 188, according to multiple sources in the room. It was a secret ballot, and McCarthy only needed support from a simple majority of the conference to prevail. In January, however, McCarthy must win 218 votes, or a majority of the House, to become speaker.

    Kinzinger also warned on Sunday that he wouldn’t be surprised if McCarthy had to make deals with Democrats in order to get things done in the next Congress, with more hard-line elements of the House GOP newly empowered by the party’s narrow majority.

    “I would not be surprised if Kevin McCarthy has to cut deals with Democrats, which is something he needs to keep in mind, because he’s not going to get 218 votes for everything he wants to pass, including government funding,” Kinzinger said.

    Former House Speaker Paul Ryan expressed confidence in McCarthy to become the next speaker, saying in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, “There isn’t anybody better suited to running this conference than Kevin McCarthy.”

    “He’s been good for conservatives, frankly. But he’s also a person who really understands how to manage a conference,” the Wisconsin Republican added.

    Ryan backed McCarthy’s plan to conduct oversight of the Justice Department and of the president’s son, Hunter Biden, but added, “That’s not a substitute for an agenda.”

    He applauded current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “impressive legacy,” saying, “She has an incredible legacy and career to look back on.”

    Ryan blamed Donald Trump for Republicans’ disappointing performance this election cycle and predicted that the former president would not win the GOP nomination in 2024, saying, “It’s pretty clear. With Trump, we lose.”

    “The evidence is really clear. The biggest factor was the Trump factor,” he said when asked to reflect on his prediction that Republicans would pick up 15 seats. “It’s palpable right now. We get past Trump, we start winning elections. We stick with Trump, we keep losing elections.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Twitter was already in disarray. Trump’s return will only make it more chaotic | CNN Business

    Twitter was already in disarray. Trump’s return will only make it more chaotic | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    New York
    CNN Business
     — 

    With his decision on Saturday to restore the personal Twitter account of former President Donald Trump nearly two years after it was permanently banned, Elon Musk could plunge Twitter deeper into chaos — and that may be the point.

    In the weeks since Musk completed his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, the influential social network has shed so much staff that users and employees have raised concerns about its ability to continue operating. It has also suffered a “massive drop in revenue,” according to Musk, as a growing number of brands pause advertising amid uncertainty about the direction and stability of the platform.

    Trump’s return won’t help either issue.

    The company’s servers are “being put through quite the stress test by @elonmusk right now,” tweeted Sriram Krishnan, a general partner at VC firm Andreessen Horowitz and former Twitter employee who is working with Musk to manage the company. (He also noted Trump’s return comes a day before the World Cup is set to kick off, a high-traffic event for the platform.)

    Also on Saturday, NAACP president Derrick Johnson sent an urgent warning to companies still doing business with Twitter: “Any advertiser still funding Twitter should immediately pause all advertising.”

    Some advertisers had previously indicated they could halt spending on the platform if Trump were to be reinstated, potentially dealing a further blow to a company that generates nearly all of its revenue from advertising.

    Before buying Twitter, Musk had repeatedly said he would reinstate Trump’s account and rethink the platform’s approach to permanent bans as part of his maximalist vision for “free speech.” But Musk also sought to reassure brands and users that he would establish a “content moderation council” to determine whether Trump and other banned account holders would be brought back on the platform.

    There is no indication that group was even established, let alone involved in the decision to restore Trump. Instead, Musk tweeted a poll Friday, asking followers to vote whether or not to restore Trump’s account. “Yes” won, and Musk tweeted Saturday: “The people have spoken. Trump will be reinstated. Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” Latin for “the voice of the people is the voice of God.”

    If Musk has any strategy behind the decision and its timing, it appears to be betting that chaos makes for a good show.

    Through all the mass layoffs and staff departures, the controversial paid verification option introduced and withdrawn, the prominent brands and celebrities pulling back from the platform, and the widespread criticism of his incendiary remarks, Musk has repeatedly stressed that Twitter is hitting all-time highs in user numbers.

    Now, add Trump to the mix.

    Throughout his time as president, Trump was the most high-profile and often the most controversial user on the platform, forcing Twitter to think about how it should handle a sitting world leader taunting North Korea with threats of nuclear destruction (allowed) and encouraging a violent pro-Trump mob to attack the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 (which got him banned).

    But Trump also made Twitter into the center of the known media and political universe. His tweets made headlines, moved markets and shaped the agenda in Washington. Celebrities, world leaders, and a long list of critics and supporters often engaged with Trump directly on Twitter. The world could not look away.

    It remains unclear whether Trump will tweet as often, or at all, now that he has his own social network, Truth Social. And if he does, his tweets may not get quite as much attention as when he was the sitting president. But Musk’s decision to bring Trump back also comes days after Trump announced he would run for president again, raising the likelihood that Trump’s remarks and his tweets, if he posts them, won’t be ignored.

    Musk is clearly still in the early days of setting up his so-called Twitter 2.0. Apart from reorganizing staff and racing to bolster Twitter’s bottom line through subscription products, he also has yet to formalize his policies around bans and suspensions.

    But one answer seems clear: Musk appears to be betting that if users can’t turn away from the platform, neither can advertisers. And with enough eyeballs on the site, he may just be able to find new ways to make money from them.

    All he has to do is find a way to keep the lights on.

    [ad_2]

    Source link