from

All posts tagged from

Destroying ISIS won’t save us from ISIS

+ READ ARTICLE

Here we are again. Dozens dead on a national day of celebration. Bastille day, Ramadan. There’s no way to predict the timing of these attacks. ISIS will hit whenever they can and whoever it can.

This group continues to improve its ability to direct or inspire attacks in faraway places, and their desire to deliver punishment will only grow as the so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is bombed into smaller and smaller pieces of territory. (They’ve lost about the half the ground they once controlled in Iraq and about a quarter in Syria.) As with al Qaeda after 9/11, the leadership is dying, but the brand is thriving.

A few hours before this latest attack, French President Francois Hollande had marked his country’s national day with a speech on the dangers of populism, which he called the greatest threat to the future of the Republic. Right or wrong, the attackers in Nice will help populists argue that the president is blind to the much more immediate danger facing the nation. A national state of emergency has now been extended an additional three months.

Read More: How to Help the Victims of the Nice Attack

Next year, France will hold national elections. The far-right Front National, the most successful populists in France, were already polling in the high 20s. The party’s presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen, has called for closer scrutiny of France’s Muslim citizens, an estimated 8% of the population, and detention of anyone suspected of connection with terrorism or terrorist planning. A weak Hollande will be weakened further. The center-right doesn’t have a clear leader yet. Alain Juppe, their likeliest president candidate, will find himself squeezed between hardline messages from the left and far right.

Most worrisome is that the response in France to this latest attack will not be as unified as following the Charlie Hebdo murders 18 months ago. The deeply felt solidarity that brought citizens together after that massacre is giving way to a deepening sense of insecurity that creates fear, then anger. French society will divide further as next year’s election approaches. That’s not unique to France—it’s human nature. Le Pen sees the political potential in front of her, and we should have no doubt she will seize it.

Read More: Nice Awakes to a Changed City on Morning After Attack

Now to the hardly-more-encouraging regional backdrop. Britons voted for Brexit in large part because E.U. rules on the free movement of people have doubled the share of foreign-born residents in the U.K. just in the past 15 years. These are immigrants from Poland and Romania rather than Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Leave campaign made sure that Europe’s migrant crisis remained a part of the broader Brexit debate. Nigel Farage included Muslim migrants in a widely noticed campaign poster, and Boris Johnson, now Britain’s chief diplomat, once said Barack Obama has a Kenyan anti-colonialist mindset. Never mind that attacks in France and Belgium have been carried out by Muslims born and raised in France and Belgium. “Fear of the other” sells, and right now it’s selling like hotcakes.

What sells in France and Britain will sell elsewhere in Europe. The Alternative for Deutschland party in Germany will narrow Chancellor Angela Merkel’s room for political maneuver. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, the most effective leader in Europe in recent years this side of Merkel, will now have a much harder time getting the outcome he wants in a crucial referendum on reform and constitutional revision this fall. Far-right voices will grow louder in the Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Hungary, Austria and elsewhere. Europe will only get harder to govern at a moment when forceful leadership is crucial. Negotiations between Britain and E.U. leaders over terms of Brexit will be contentious, controversial—and won’t end any time soon.

Read More: French Politicians Say Nice Attack Might Have Been Avoided

External factors won’t help. Syria’s civil war rages on. The deal that Europe has made with Erdogan’s Turkey to manage refugee flows will face new pressures as European governments balk at keeping promises of visa-free travel through Europe for Turks. If it falls apart, a new wave of mostly Muslim migrants will make their way north.

So what about Trump? These factors are unlikely to play out in the U.S. as in Europe, because this sort of nativist populism will always be a tougher sell in a much more diverse country like the United States. If Trump were more competent and coherent, it might be different. But his cringe-inducing reaction to the murder of so many innocents in Orlando by a man who had just pledged allegiance to ISIS demonstrates that he is not a skilled politician and won’t become one in time for November 8.

That said, it’s entirely fair for voters to ask President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton how their experience and political skills have made a difference in this increasingly tumultuous world. A President must know how to heal wounds, but he or she should also offer compelling ideas about to prevent some of these wounds in the first place.

One thing is clear: bombing ISIS onto smaller and smaller pieces may well be an important and necessary thing. But after all these recent attacks—in Orlando, Istanbul, Dhaka, Baghdad and now Nice—it’s not enough to free us of the fear that the ISIS brand is far from finished.

There is no U.S. or international strategy that can solve that problem. The vast majority of the world’s Muslims do not support ISIS, but there are enough who do—including citizens of France, Britain, Germany and the United States—that we must rethink our assumptions.

What we need to do is find a way to give Muslim citizens everywhere a greater stake in the peace and prosperity of the countries in which they live, one that leaves as little room as possible in which murderers can plot attacks. And at the same time, that strategy needs to ask those Muslims to accept the responsibilities that come with that greater stake. What else can we do?

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

In case you have just emerged from a desert island or a long sleep: the UK has a new prime minister, Theresa May, who in turn has appointed a new foreign secretary.

The man who will be representing Britain’s interests abroad is Boris Johnson. Yes, that Boris Johnson, the tousle-haired, barrel-bellied engineer of the UK’s exit from the EU.

It’s an appointment that’s been treated with some shock around the world – not least because he has been less than diplomatic about other countries and their leaders before.

Some of his positions, often outlined in his newspaper columns, also risk clashing with his own government’s official stance.

Boris on Africa

On Tony Blair visiting Africa, in 2002: “What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies…

“They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.”

Mr Johnson apologised for the comments in 2008, during his successful campaign to be mayor of London.

But it’s not the only time he has used the term “piccaninnies”, a derogatory word for black children.

On the effects of colonialism in Uganda (in 2002): “If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”

On Barack Obama’s decision to remove a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office (in March this year)

“No one was sure whether the President had himself been involved in the decision. Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.”

Mr Obama then spoke out over Mr Johnson’s comments.

Boris on Turkey’s president

Earlier this year, Turkey pushed for the prosecution of a German comedian who composed an obscene poem about President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In response, the British magazine The Spectator ran a competition asking readers to submit an offensive poem about Mr Erdogan – a competition won by Mr Johnson.

While we can’t print the poem in full, you can read it here – suffice to say, it includes a creative rhyme for “Ankara”.

Mr Johnson has Turkish ancestry – but that is something he’s been advised against exploiting.

Pro-government newspaper commentator Selim Atala tweeted: “Dear @BorisJohnson I understand you need well-versed apologies in Turkish. I can help you with that. PS: Turkish roots-card won’t work.”

Boris on Syria

After Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops, bolstered by Russian forces, reclaimed the ancient city of Palmyra from the self-styled Islamic State group, Mr Johnson was fulsome in his praise.

He wrote that “any sane person should feel a sense of satisfaction at what Assad’s troops have accomplished”, but maintained that Assad was “a monster, a dictator”.

Boris on Putin

In a column last December, Mr Johnson compared Vladimir Putin to Dobby the House Elf, the Harry Potter character.

While criticising Mr Putin, he has also praised his role in Russia and called for more co-operation with Moscow.

(Mr Johnson’s predecessor as foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, had criticised Russia for targeting civilians by bombing hospitals and schools in Syria.)

In May, Mr Johnson also called into question the EU’s role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, where Russia is widely accused of backing the rebels who control much of the region.

“If you want an example of EU foreign policymaking on the hoof and the EU’s pretensions to running a defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine,” he told reporters.

On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he hoped Mr Johnson’s appointment would signal a new start for UK-Russia ties.

Reminded of Mr Johnson’s comments, Mr Peskov said: “The weight of his current position will certainly, probably, provoke a different kind of rhetoric of a more diplomatic character.”

Boris and Japan

Travelling to a country on a trade visit and responding by violently flattening a 10-year-old boy is perhaps not diplomacy at its greatest.

Boris and the US

His new role will inevitably take him to meet officials in the country of his birth, and to deal with its next president. Only one problem there (depending on who wins the election in November)…

Boris on Hillary Clinton

“She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.” – in 2007

Boris on Donald Trump

“I am genuinely worried that he could become president,” Mr Johnson said in March. “I was in New York and some photographers were trying to take a picture of me and a girl walked down the pavement towards me and she stopped and she said, ‘Gee, is that Trump?’

“It was one of the worst moments.”

He’s also accused Mr Trump of being “out of his mind” and of possessing “stupefying ignorance”.

Boris on Iran

In a 2006 column, he said he supported Iran having the nuclear bomb, saying it was “the the only sure-fire means of protecting my country, and my poor huddled constituents…from the possibility of an attack by America.”

While he acknowledges this was at a time the US was fighting two wars, it’s fair to say Mr Johnson’s opinion here is… unconventional.

Boris on Papua New Guinea

Some things never change: in 2006, the Labour party was (again) in the middle of another leadership crisis. And Boris was (again) apologising for more offensive comments – this time in relation to Labour’s troubles.

He wrote: “For 10 years we in the Tory Party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing, and so it is with a happy amazement that we watch as the madness engulfs the Labour Party.”

Papua New Guinea’s High Commissioner in London was not happy.

And what Boris is like abroad…

Staff at the Foreign Office may have their hands full, if one report is anything to go by.

“Foreign Office staff had to pick up a hotel bar tab, stop Mr Johnson from driving a sports car out of a showroom and arrange last-minute tours when the mayor of London travelled to Erbil, in the semi-autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, in January 2015,” the FT reported.

While his visit did lead to more deals struck in Kurdistan, it reportedly proved a diplomatic headache. At one point, the FT said, Mr Johnson insisted on visiting the front line in the fight against IS.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

In case you have just emerged from a desert island or a long sleep: the UK has a new prime minister, Theresa May, who in turn has appointed a new foreign secretary.

The man who will be representing Britain’s interests abroad is Boris Johnson. Yes, that Boris Johnson, the tousle-haired, barrel-bellied engineer of the UK’s exit from the EU.

It’s an appointment that’s been treated with some shock around the world – not least because he has been less than diplomatic about other countries and their leaders before.

Some of his positions, often outlined in his newspaper columns, also risk clashing with his own government’s official stance.

Boris on Africa

On Tony Blair visiting Africa, in 2002: “What a relief it must be for Blair to get out of England. It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies…

“They say he is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.”

Mr Johnson apologised for the comments in 2008, during his successful campaign to be mayor of London.

But it’s not the only time he has used the term “piccaninnies”, a derogatory word for black children.

On the effects of colonialism in Uganda (in 2002): “If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”

On Barack Obama’s decision to remove a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office (in March this year)

“No one was sure whether the President had himself been involved in the decision. Some said it was a snub to Britain. Some said it was a symbol of the part-Kenyan President’s ancestral dislike of the British empire – of which Churchill had been such a fervent defender.”

Mr Obama then spoke out over Mr Johnson’s comments.

Boris on Turkey’s president

Earlier this year, Turkey pushed for the prosecution of a German comedian who composed an obscene poem about President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In response, the British magazine The Spectator ran a competition asking readers to submit an offensive poem about Mr Erdogan – a competition won by Mr Johnson.

While we can’t print the poem in full, you can read it here – suffice to say, it includes a creative rhyme for “Ankara”.

Mr Johnson has Turkish ancestry – but that is something he’s been advised against exploiting.

Pro-government newspaper commentator Selim Atala tweeted: “Dear @BorisJohnson I understand you need well-versed apologies in Turkish. I can help you with that. PS: Turkish roots-card won’t work.”

Boris on Syria

After Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops, bolstered by Russian forces, reclaimed the ancient city of Palmyra from the self-styled Islamic State group, Mr Johnson was fulsome in his praise.

He wrote that “any sane person should feel a sense of satisfaction at what Assad’s troops have accomplished”, but maintained that Assad was “a monster, a dictator”.

Boris on Putin

In a column last December, Mr Johnson compared Vladimir Putin to Dobby the House Elf, the Harry Potter character.

While criticising Mr Putin, he has also praised his role in Russia and called for more co-operation with Moscow.

(Mr Johnson’s predecessor as foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, had criticised Russia for targeting civilians by bombing hospitals and schools in Syria.)

In May, Mr Johnson also called into question the EU’s role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine, where Russia is widely accused of backing the rebels who control much of the region.

“If you want an example of EU foreign policymaking on the hoof and the EU’s pretensions to running a defence policy that have caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine,” he told reporters.

On Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he hoped Mr Johnson’s appointment would signal a new start for UK-Russia ties.

Reminded of Mr Johnson’s comments, Mr Peskov said: “The weight of his current position will certainly, probably, provoke a different kind of rhetoric of a more diplomatic character.”

Boris and Japan

Travelling to a country on a trade visit and responding by violently flattening a 10-year-old boy is perhaps not diplomacy at its greatest.

Boris and the US

His new role will inevitably take him to meet officials in the country of his birth, and to deal with its next president. Only one problem there (depending on who wins the election in November)…

Boris on Hillary Clinton

“She’s got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a sadistic nurse in a mental hospital.” – in 2007

Boris on Donald Trump

“I am genuinely worried that he could become president,” Mr Johnson said in March. “I was in New York and some photographers were trying to take a picture of me and a girl walked down the pavement towards me and she stopped and she said, ‘Gee, is that Trump?’

“It was one of the worst moments.”

He’s also accused Mr Trump of being “out of his mind” and of possessing “stupefying ignorance”.

Boris on Iran

In a 2006 column, he said he supported Iran having the nuclear bomb, saying it was “the the only sure-fire means of protecting my country, and my poor huddled constituents…from the possibility of an attack by America.”

While he acknowledges this was at a time the US was fighting two wars, it’s fair to say Mr Johnson’s opinion here is… unconventional.

Boris on Papua New Guinea

Some things never change: in 2006, the Labour party was (again) in the middle of another leadership crisis. And Boris was (again) apologising for more offensive comments – this time in relation to Labour’s troubles.

He wrote: “For 10 years we in the Tory Party have become used to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing, and so it is with a happy amazement that we watch as the madness engulfs the Labour Party.”

Papua New Guinea’s High Commissioner in London was not happy.

And what Boris is like abroad…

Staff at the Foreign Office may have their hands full, if one report is anything to go by.

“Foreign Office staff had to pick up a hotel bar tab, stop Mr Johnson from driving a sports car out of a showroom and arrange last-minute tours when the mayor of London travelled to Erbil, in the semi-autonomous region of Iraqi Kurdistan, in January 2015,” the FT reported.

While his visit did lead to more deals struck in Kurdistan, it reportedly proved a diplomatic headache. At one point, the FT said, Mr Johnson insisted on visiting the front line in the fight against IS.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

Hillary Clinton has emerged from the F.B.I. investigation into her email practices as secretary of state a wounded candidate with a large and growing majority of voters saying she cannot be trusted, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

As Mrs. Clinton prepares to accept the Democratic Party’s nomination at the convention in Philadelphia this month, she will confront an electorate in which 67 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy. That number is up five percentage points from a CBS News poll conducted last month, before the F.B.I. released its findings.

Mrs. Clinton’s six-percentage-point lead over the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, in a CBS News poll last month has evaporated. The two candidates are now tied in a general election matchup, the new poll indicates, with each receiving the support of 40 percent of voters.

Mr. Trump is also distrusted by a large number of voters — 62 percent — but that number has stayed constant despite increased scrutiny on his business record and falsehoods in his public statements and Twitter messages.

But Mrs. Clinton’s shifting and inaccurate explanations of her email practices at the State Department appear to have resonated more deeply with the electorate.

Interactive Feature | Who Would Do a Better Job on

Last week, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, recommended no criminal charges be filed against Mrs. Clinton over her handling of classified information on a private email server, but he called her actions “extremely careless.” The investigation undercut many of Mrs. Clinton’s statements over the past 18 months to explain and defend her decision to rely on the private server at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y.

Mrs. Clinton and her campaign celebrated the Justice Department’s decision not to indict her as a legal victory, but the political fallout appears significant, at least for now. She and her aides have vowed to win back the public’s trust, while acknowledging that this will be tough.

Voters still view Mrs. Clinton as vastly more prepared for the job — with 50 percent saying she is prepared, compared with the 30 percent who say the same about Mr. Trump. Voters’ views of Mrs. Clinton’s preparedness have also declined, by nine percentage points since last month.

As the candidates head to their respective party conventions, they will confront voters who range from disappointed to disgruntled about their choices.

Just 28 percent of voters said they had a positive view of Mrs. Clinton, compared with 33 percent last month. Asked if her email practices were illegal, 46 percent of voters said yes, compared with 23 percent who said using a private server was improper but not illegal. Twenty-four percent said she did nothing wrong.

“I just don’t think she’s been completely truthful with this whole thing with her emails,” Cecelia Purner, 67, a retired customer service representative in Allentown, Pa., said in a follow-up interview. But, she added, “I think she’ll make a good president if elected.”

Mr. Trump has slightly improved his standing, with 30 percent of voters saying they have a positive view of him. Last month, 26 percent said the same.

As attack ads and verbal charges intensify on both sides, voters already appear fatigued. More than six in 10 say they were not looking forward to the next few months of the campaign; 46 percent said they were unenthusiastic about the 2016 presidential election.

Carole Bower, 75, a retiree in Carthage, Ill., supported Gov. John Kasich of Ohio in the Republican primary, but now plans to vote for Mr. Trump. “I will reluctantly do that because he’s got to be better than Hillary,” she said. “I will hold my nose and go into that voting booth.”

The grim view of the political climate comes as Americans experience heightened anxieties connected to their economic prospects, the threat of terrorism and race relations.

The killings of black men by white police officers and attacks on the police have left 62 percent of voters saying race relations are growing worse. Mrs. Clinton is seen as far more capable of dealing with racial tensions than Mr. Trump — 60 percent of voters said Mrs. Clinton would be better at handling the issue, double the number who said the same of Mr. Trump.

Mrs. Clinton has largely based her campaign on lifting the economic fortunes of a middle class that has felt squeezed after nearly 15 years of stagnant wages, a message that should fit with the current climate. Yet voters increasingly view Mrs. Clinton as less able to fulfill that economic promise. Last month, those polled were evenly split on whether Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump would do a better job handling the economy and jobs. Now, 52 percent said Mr. Trump would be better, compared with 41 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

Interactive Feature | 2016 Election Polls Get the latest national and state polls on the presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump.

After the deadly attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., by a gunman who expressed sympathy for the Islamic State, voters are evenly divided on which candidate would do a better job of handling terrorism and national security, an issue on which Mrs. Clinton held a seven-percentage-point advantage last month.

The lens through which voters view the candidates is sharply divided along gender and racial lines, with Mr. Trump having a double-digit lead among men and white voters without college degrees and Mrs. Clinton maintaining her double-digit edge among women and nonwhites.

At a rally in Portsmouth, N.H., on Tuesday, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont endorsed Mrs. Clinton, saying that his former Democratic primary rival would “make an outstanding president.” But some of his supporters remain reluctant to get behind Mrs. Clinton, often citing trust as a factor.

“Bernie seemed more to be more transparent than her,” said Rachel Woolard, 20, of Jacksonville, Fla. “She definitely has the stereotypical politician approach to things, so that makes her feel a little disingenuous.”

The nationwide poll was conducted July 8 to 12 on cellphones and landlines among 1,358 registered voters. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points for all voters.

With intense news media attention surrounding the candidates’ selection of running mates, many voters across party lines shrugged off the decision, with three in 10 saying a vice-presidential candidate would have no effect on their vote.

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service – if this is your content and you’re reading it on someone else’s site, please read the FAQ at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php#publishers.
Recommended article from FiveFilters.org: Most Labour MPs in the UK Are Revolting.

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

Alton Sterling, a black man from Baton Rouge, was killed by police there this week in a case that reignited tensions over police violence toward the African-American community. Another case in Minnesota, the shooting death of Philando Castile during a traffic stop, similarly sparked outrage and protests in many parts of the country. Adding yet another layer of tragedy to the week, five police officers were gunned down by a sniper in Dallas during a protest over police violence. Seven others were wounded.

Quinyetta McMillon, the mother of Sterling’s oldest son — along with her lawyer, L. Chris Stewart — spoke to CBS News correspondent David Begnaud about how her family is coping with their loss and how the nation can move forward from the recent violence.

Q: What is your reaction to the shooting of white Dallas police officers on Thursday?

McMillon: I’m sorry that that happened. Violence [does] not take care of violence.

The hurt of those families. The pain that I know they feel, because I’m going through it. It hurts. It’s just a bad situation and it’s not right.

Q: You feel a connection with the officers’ families?

McMillon: I do. I do. It hurts when you lose a loved one.

Q: How is your son Cameron (who broke down in tears during a family news conference on Sterling’s death) doing?

McMillon: Right now, Cameron is doing fine. He’s trying to get back into a regular 15-year-old life, which means being himself again. He really doesn’t like to talk about what happened, but from time to time he will, you know, speak on how he feels. I mean, he misses his father.

NAACP leader: We need new legislation passed

Play Video

CBSN

NAACP leader: We need new legislation passed

NAACP president Cornell William Brooks joins CBSN to discuss the Dallas massacre, as well as this week’s shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota.

Q: Did you want him to see the video of what happened to his dad?

McMillon: I did not.

Q: How did he see it?

McMillon: It was everywhere. Every time he’d go to turn on YouTube or anything, everything was flashing on everything technology has.

Q: Do you remember what he said to you once he watched it?

McMillon: He said, “Mama. My daddy. My daddy, Mama. I need my daddy. I miss him so much. Why my daddy, Mama?”

Q: What do you say to a 15-year-old boy who watches that?

McMillon: I just say, “Cameron, just stay strong. Continue to pray and mama’s sorry that that happened. But I’m going to be there with you no matter what. We just have to continue to pray for each other, love each other, and ask God to just help, you know, get this world together.”

Q: Many families in Baton Rouge say their children are afraid of the police, and they’re afraid for their children. Is your son afraid of the police?

McMillon: No, he’s not afraid of the police, because they still have a lot of good police out here. Everybody is not bad.

New video released of Alton Sterling shooting

Play Video

CBSN

New video released of Alton Sterling shooting

(Warning: This video contains graphic footage) New video has emerged of Baton Rouge police officers shooting Alton Sterling Tuesday. The FBI has …

Q: Social media has compelled the nation to react to recent events. Do you also think social media has ignited some of the violence in response that we’ve seen?

McMillon: Yes.

Q: Who do you blame for that?

McMillon: “I mean, you really don’t know where to start.

Mr. Stewart, you spoke at a news conference yesterday, and you said, “If you can’t watch this, something’s wrong with you.” What did you mean?

Stewart: You know, the point you start seeing that it seems like society has lost all of its humanity. Myself and my co-counsel, Attorney Bamberg, we haven’t slept yet because of what happened in Dallas. And we stayed up literally all night watching every bit of news coverage on it.

It’s heart-breaking and it’s heart-breaking on a number of levels. It’s destructive to all of the positive change that was going on. It’s idiotic because, do you think that we’re safer now? Do you think that cops are going to treat you with more respect now, or the community? Do you think that’s truly going to happen? Do you think that the officer that already had an itchy trigger finger is going to hold off a little bit longer now? Or do you think that the guy that was already on edge is going to be even more on edge and I’m going to have more clients like Alton Sterling? Which one do you think is going to happen? Do you think that fixes something? Now a whole bunch of other families that are now grieving and having to plan funerals are feeling their pain.

Q: Do you think society in any way bears a blame for the emotion that has been conjured up over the last 72 hours?

Stewart: No, because this isn’t the first time. People have seen something like this before. What people don’t understand… everyone always wants to lump people together like it’s entire groups. Black or white. It’s always the few extreme individuals that destroy peacefulness of society and destroy people’s lives. It’s the few bad cops that get caught doing something that destroy the reputation of police officers. If the few extremists from the minority community that do something that then get us all labeled as a certain way. And the problem is, that’s been going on since the turn of history. Small individuals labeling an entire group.

Q: Do you believe social media has incited some of the violence?

Stewart: Social media is just another information tool. I mean the stuff you see on social media are videos or news stories you could easily see on television. It’s just a quicker way to get it out.

There was a headline in the New York Post that had “Civil War” on it and the Post is catching a lot of heat for it. Do you believe we’re at a point of “Civil War,” if you will, in just what’s happened over the last three days? Do you feel the situation is that dire?

Stewart: If we want to let the extremists win, then people can believe that. But I’ve got more faith in this country as a whole. I’ve got more faith in African-Americans. I’ve got more faith in Caucasians. I’ve got more faith in people. The problem is that we see so many people that don’t value humanity and we blast it out everywhere like that’s the majority that we start believing it, but that’s not true.

Q: Mrs. McMillon, the father of your son died after a 911 call was made saying that a man had a weapon. Did you know Mr. Sterling to have a weapon?

McMillon: I did not.

Q: When was the last time you spoke to Mr. Sterling?

McMillon: I spoke to Mr. Sterling on Sunday. His demeanor was, after the holiday, which was that very next morning, the day after his death, he arranged to get his kids and take them to the movies, take them out to eat and spend the day with them. He said all the money I make off my CDs tonight is going towards my children.

Q: That was a full-time job for him, selling his CDs?

McMillon: Correct.

Q: Where do you lay the blame for what happened?

McMillon: I honestly can’t answer that.

Q: Do you blame the police?

McMillon: I blame those two officers, not all police. Those two officers. That’s who I blame for the death of my son’s father. Yes I do.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

By ,

Under withering questioning from House Republicans, FBI Director James B. Comey asserted Thursday that it would have been unfair and virtually unprecedented to bring a criminal case against Hillary Clinton under current laws — calmly turning aside inquiries from legislators trying to show that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee should have been indicted.

At a nearly five-hour hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Republicans grilled the FBI director on how Clinton’s public statements differed from investigators’ findings, how Comey could consider Clinton “careless” but not criminal, and whether Clinton was being given a pass because of who she is.

In response, Comey tried to pull back the curtain on the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server and the team’s legal deliberations.

“As a non-lawyer, as a non-investigator, it would appear to me you have got a hell of a case,” an exasperated Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) told Comey.

“I’m telling you we don’t, and I hope people take the time to understand why,” Comey responded.

[Senate Judiciary chairman demands details of Clinton email investigation, as Republicans cry foul]

Comey potentially gave Clinton’s political rivals some ammunition, conceding there was “evidence of mishandling” classified information and that an FBI employee who did the same “would face consequences for this.”

He also notably asserted he was “not going to comment on the existence or nonexistence of any other investigations,” when asked if investigators had looked at the Clinton Foundation.

But Comey said investigators did not find evidence that Clinton intended to do wrong with her email setup, and they determined it would have been inappropriate to charge her under a statute allowing for a prosecution based on “gross negligence.”

“You know what would be a double standard?” Comey said. “If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.”

Comey said he believed Clinton was “extremely careless; I think she was negligent.” But he said that FBI agents, in the late stages of the investigation, focused on a different question: “Is there sufficient evidence of intent?”

“It takes mishandling it and criminal intent,” Comey said. In this and all cases, he said, “we don’t want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn’t do.”

Republicans argued that Clinton did, and late in the hearing House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) pointed to a 2011 email in which Clinton told an aide to turn a fax “into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” The aide had been having trouble getting the document in Clinton’s hands.

Comey said Clinton claimed to FBI agents that she was intending to instruct the aide to “make it into a non-classified document.” He said he believed Clinton asked for the header to be removed because it would have no longer been necessary, if the document was no longer classified.

“You are very generous in your accepting of that,” Chaffetz responded.

Republicans also questioned aggressively how Comey could conclude that no charges should be brought if Comey felt Clinton was careless. In recent days, many have pointed to a section of the Espionage Act that allows for prosecutions of those who, through “gross negligence,” let classified information “be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”

“We’re mystified and confused by the fact pattern that you laid out and the conclusions that you reached,” Chaffetz told Comey. “It seems that there are two standards, and there’s no consequence for these types of activities and dealing in a careless way with classified information. It seems to a lot of us that the Average Joe, the average American, that if they had done what you laid out in your statement, that they’d be in handcuffs.”

Comey said investigators examined that charge for Clinton and her staffers but found that a prosecution would have been virtually unparalleled. Federal authorities had brought one such case in nearly a century, and the circumstances were drastically different.

“No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years based on gross negligence,” Comey said.

[Unlike Petraeus and others, Clinton’s case lacked malicious intent or other nefarious elements]

Experts said the case to which Comey was referring is likely that of James Smith, an FBI agent who was accused in 2003 of having a sexual relationship with an informant who turned out to be a Chinese spy. Smith ultimately pleaded guilty to a charge of making a false statement, not a count under the Espionage Act.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement that Comey’s testimony “clearly knocked down a number of false Republican talking points.”

“The Director’s explanations shut the door on any remaining conspiracy theories once and for all,” said Fallon. “While Republicans may try to keep this issue alive, this hearing proved those efforts will only backfire.”

Congressional Republicans also probed Thursday whether the FBI was concerned with Clinton’s prior congressional testimony that no emails marked classified ever traversed her private system, given that Comey previously rebutted that claim. Comey clarified at the hearing that investigators found three such emails with the notation “(C)” — meaning confidential — contained within the text and said it was “possible she didn’t understand what a ‘C’ meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.”

Chaffetz asked if the FBI had investigated specifically Clinton’s previous statements, which were in his view false, to Congress. Comey said to open a criminal investigation, he would need a referral from Congress.

“You’ll have one, you’ll have one in the next few hours,” Chaffetz said.

While Comey confirmed Clinton did not lie to bureau investigators, he said he was “not qualified to answer” whether she had lied to the public.

“I really don’t want to get in the business of trying to parse and judge her public statements,” he said.

The much-anticipated appearance came just a day after the Justice Department formally closed its probe involving the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and two days after Comey announced his controversial recommendation. Republican legislators have been waging an aggressive campaign to solicit more information from Comey, and the FBI director said he welcomed the opportunity to explain his decision making to the American public. That, he said, is why he decided to announce his recommendation not to charge Clinton on Tuesday without consulting anyone at the Justice Department first.

“What I decided to do was offer transparency to the American people about the why’s of that, because I thought that was very, very important for their confidence in the system of justice,” Comey said.

Comey has said previously that investigators looked at other cases involving classified information and could not find one that would support charges in the Clinton matter. He specifically addressed the bureau’s investigation of former CIA director and general David Petraeus on Thursday, distinguishing it from the Clinton email probe in no uncertain terms. He said Petraeus — unlike Clinton — lied to the FBI, and investigators found classified material in his desk.

“Clearly intentional conduct,” Comey said of Petraeus, “Knew what he was doing was a violation of the law.”

But Comey also said if an FBI agent were found to have been careless with classified information, that could result in a loss of security clearance, suspension or even termination. He declined to say precisely what consequence he felt Clinton should face.

“One of my employees would not be prosecuted for this,” he said. “They would face consequences for this.”

Comey said investigators had found no evidence that Clinton’s private server had been hacked, though others with whom she corresponded had. He explicitly batted down claims by the Romanian hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar — whose cyber-mischief revealed that Hillary Clinton was using a private email address — that he had gotten into Clinton’s account.

“He admitted that was a lie,” Comey said.

Comey has been the public face of the Clinton investigation, even eclipsing his boss, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Late last week, Lynch announced she would accept the recommendation of career prosecutors and FBI agents to assuage questions about the investigation’s integrity, concerns that were intensified after Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton aboard her plane in Phoenix. Lynch and Clinton have asserted the meeting was a chance, social encounter at which no pending cases were discussed, and Lynch has said she planned to accept career employees’ recommendation even before it occurred.

Lynch herself is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. On Wednesday, she announced in a brief statement that she was accepting the recommendation of Comey and others and closing the probe involving Clinton.

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State,” Lynch said in a statement. “I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

A previous version of this story said Comey testified that investigators found classified materials in the attic of former CIA Director David Petraeus. Comey later corrected himself, saying the materials were found in a desk.

Read more:

FBI rebuke leaves a heavy political cloud over Clinton

FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe

The plain-speaking FBI director: James Comey delivers ‘hard truths’

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

First Read is a morning briefing from Meet the Press and the NBC Political Unit on the day’s most important political stories and why they matter.

Email saga sums up the Clintons over the last 20 years

The good news for Hillary Clinton after yesterday: The final hurdle she had to clear in the email story — whether or not she broke the law — is now behind her, with the FBI’s decision not to recommend any charges. The bad news: FBI Director James Comey took out his ruler and whacked Clinton’s knuckles for being “careless” while contradicting many of her past statements, which Republicans are sure to use over the next four months (see this new RNC video here). So she received a legal bill of health, but not a political one. Yet more than anything else, the entire email saga epitomizes the Clintons over the last 20 years, whether it’s the Lewinsky scandal, the Marc Rich pardon, or the set-up of the Clinton Foundation. They’re careless. They exercise poor judgment. But there’s not enough to expel them. And oh, the opposition is worse — or takes the criticism way too far. Indeed, against any other 2016 competitor, Hillary Clinton would be in a world of political hurt right now. But her opponent is Donald Trump.

Not quite on message

Trump blasts Hillary — as well as James Comey and Loretta Lynch. And he praises Saddam Hussein, to boot: In his rally in North Carolina last night, Trump seized on the email news, but also created some other news that distracted from yesterday’s findings. “It’s a tragedy, because we’re a country of law. We’re a country of order. Other people have been so badly hurt by doing things so much less than Crooked Hillary Clinton,” he said, adding: “Today is the best evidence ever that we’ve seen that our system is absolutely, totally rigged. It’s rigged.” Bottom line here: Trump was not only attacking Clinton; he was blasting Comey and the FBI. Trump also suggested that Hillary Clinton bribed Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “So Hillary said today, at least according to what I saw on television, which you can’t always believe, I actually found it hard to believe she’d say this — but she said today that we may consider the attorney general to go forward. That’s like a bribe, isn’t it? Isn’t that sort of a bribe? I think it’s a bribe.” And to top it off, Trump praised Saddam Hussein. “Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy. Really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn’t read them the rights, they didn’t talk — they were a terrorist, it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist, you go to Iraq. It’s like Harvard.”

Obama passes the baton to Clinton

Yesterday’s email news overshadowed Barack Obama first campaign event for Clinton, where he directly said he was passing his baton to the Democrats’ presumptive presidential nominee, per NBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald. “Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton eight years ago with the help of his charm and vitality — and on Tuesday he demonstrated how he plans to harness those gifts this time to help his former opponent get elected. ‘I have run my last campaign,’ Obama said at his first election stop of the year with Clinton. ‘And I couldn’t be prouder of the things we have done together. But I’m ready to pass the baton. And I know Hillary Clinton is going to take it.'” Consider it a preview of what we’re likely to see at the Democratic convention later this month.

Clinton goes full Joe Pesci on Trump’s casinos

At 12:15 pm ET, Clinton delivers remarks from Atlantic City, NJ, where she will hit Trump for his multiple bankruptcies and how he stiffed contractors, per a Clinton official. “In Trump’s Atlantic City gamble, small businesses lost,” a new Clinton web video says. “In Trump’s Atlantic City gamble, vendors lost… And Donald Trump stacked the deck for himself.” However, this event won’t get the same kind of lift it would have after yesterday’s email news.

Trump stumps with Newt

NBC’s Katy Tur previews Trump’s campaign event with Newt Gingrich in Cincinnati, OH at 7:00 pm ET: “Will Newt Gingrich get a rose? Trump is in Cincinnati today campaigning with Gingrich as part of his unusual in-person running mate try-outs. It’s almost as if we are watching an episode of ‘The Bachelor.’ Last night, Bob Corker made his pitch — trying to win over the rowdy crowd with quiet praise of Trump’s off stage demeanor… Tonight will be different. Trump won’t be left alone to pick apart Clinton’s FBI review. He’ll have a master Clinton badger at his side.” Then again, that master Clinton badger was out of a job before Bill Clinton was out of his…

A month has now passed since Clinton became the presumptive nominee, and Bernie Sanders still hasn’t conceded the race — or endorsed:

Just another reminder:

  • Days it took for Hillary Clinton to endorse Barack Obama after he became the party’s presumptive nominee: 4
  • Days it has taken Bernie Sanders to endorse Clinton: 30 — and counting.

And by the way, Sanders lost another primary yesterday: the FBI primary. If he was holding out conceding or endorsing because of a potential FBI finding, well, he didn’t get that. Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs told NBC’s Danny Freeman that this decision from the FBI and James Comey does not have any bearing on whether Sanders will drop out or not.

Veepstakes Watch

Our team is out with their latest installation of VP Watch, a roundup of all the Veepstakes news out there… NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell confirms that Bob Corker is being formally vetted for the jobVaughn Hillyard and Ali Vitali look at how Team Trump is mulling the merits of two prominent possible picks: Newt Gingrich and Mike Pence… The AP calls Trump’s shortlist “heavy with Washington insiders” … POLITICO calls Sherrod Brown Hillary Clinton’s “Rust Belt ambassador” … And don’t miss Kailani Koenig’s story from earlier this week with an in-depth look at why Tim Kaine could be Clinton’s choice.

On the trail

Hillary Clinton, in Atlantic City, NJ, gives a speech on Trump’s business record at 12:15 pm ET… And Donald Trump holds a rally in Cincinnati, OH with Newt Gingrich at 7:00 pm ET. Don’t forget to check out the political unit’s rolling minute-to-minute coverage of all the latest 2016 developments at the On the Trail liveblog at NBCNews.com.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

The source confirmed the recordings from the cockpit voice recorder are in line with data extracted from other devices recovered from the wreckage, which have indicated the presence of smoke in the plane’s avionics system and lavatory.
The cockpit voice recorder captures sounds from the flight deck, including flight crew conversation, alarms and background noise that can help investigators understand what the flight crew was doing.
But authorities haven’t revealed details about what can be heard in the recording. French investigators were working to repair the voice recorder’s damaged memory chip.
The plane crashed May 19 with 56 passengers and 10 crew members aboard.
Last week Egypt’s civil aviation ministry said the plane’s flight data recorder indicated possible lavatory and avionics smoke. Additionally, wreckage from the Airbus A320’s front section showed “signs of high temperature damage and soot,” the ministry said.
The Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System, a data link for sending messages between planes and ground facilities, had also indicated there were smoke alerts near the plane’s cockpit minutes before it crashed.
Developing story – more to come

CNN’s Amy La Porte contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

The crews of two U.S. Navy boats detained briefly by Iran in January were “derelict” in their duties during a mistake-prone mission in the Persian Gulf, a Navy investigation released Thursday concluded.

The investigation found that the crews of the riverine boats took an unauthorized shortcut through Iranian territorial waters because they were in a hurry, and were not prepared to resist or evade the Iranian naval ships that surrounded them off the coast of Iran’s Farsi Island on Jan. 12.

USA TODAY

Iran detains 2 U.S. Navy boats, 10 sailors in Persian Gulf

The mission to move the boats from Kuwait to Bahrain was plagued by poor decisions, bad training and little oversight, the report concluded.

“The RCB boat captains and crews were derelict in performing their duties to expected norms and standards,” the report said, referring to riverine command boats.

The boats and 10 crew members were captured without any shots fired, creating an embarrassing international incident for the Obama administration as it was defending a controversial nuclear agreement with Iran.

Iran used the incident for propaganda purposes, releasing a video of the Americans, including one in which the skipper of the ships seemed to apologize for straying into Iranian waters.

“Our actions on that day in January did not live up to our expectations of our Navy,” Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said at a Pentagon briefing that announced the results of the investigation.

Three officers have already been fired from their jobs in connection with the incident and another six servicemembers will likely face disciplinary action, the Navy said.

The crews had only 24 hours notice that they were going to make the journey and had to stay up all night to ready the boats for the 250-nautical mile journey, according to the report which provided a detailed account of the incident. They got off late and decided to save time by taking a more direct route, which would take them through both Saudi and Iranian waters.

One of the boats broke down in the worst possible place, stranding the crew in waters only 1.5 nautical miles from Farsi Island, home to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base, the investigation said. The crew members did not know they were in Iranian territorial waters, however, when they were approached by Iranian ships with sailors bearing their weapons.

The Iranians boarded the U.S. boat, forced the U.S. sailors to kneel with their hands behind their heads and replaced the U.S. flag on the vessel with an Iranian flag, the report said.

The crew was interrogated by the Iranians, who attempted to intimidate them by slapping the table and threatening to take them to the mainland, but did not physically harm them, according to the investigation. The Iranians also collected passwords to the U.S. sailors’ personal phones and laptops.

The Iranians videotaped a crewmember making an apology scripted by the Iranians, who said the crew would not be released unless he read the script. The report, which does not name the officer, said his actions violated the code of conduct for servicemen who are held captive.

They were held by the Iranians for 16 hours before being released. The Navy report said the Iranians violated basic maritime law and practice despite the U.S. mistakes. Ships often enter territorial waters and are generally allowed to transit through as long as they do not stop.

The report said the Iranians were justified in coming out to investigate the American ships, but not in holding them or preventing them from continuing their journey.

Two higher ranking officers have already been fired from their positions as a result of the investigation. Capt. Kyle Moses, who headed a task force that included riverine operations, was relieved of his command, the Navy said in a statement last week.

In May, the Navy relieved the commander of the riverine squadron, Cmdr. Eric Rasch.

Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/292JrvG

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

Transgender service members from SPARTA pose with SPARTA's Sue Fulton, far left, and Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, third from right.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico