Trump’s Excessive ‘Executive Time’ - 11:21 AM 2/4/2019
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Trump’s Excessive ‘Executive Time’ - 11:21 AM 2/4/2019Leaked White House schedules show President Donald Trump mostly spends his days in “executive time”, an unstructured period of the day between meetings where he seemingly does very little. | "TRUMP LIES, LIES & CONTINUE LIES" Kaise ANGRY by Trump said he DON'T TAKE Anything of The Table - Trump News TV
-
Trump News TV from Michael_Novakhov (1 sites)  |
|---|
| Trump's YouTube Videos: "TRUMP LIES, LIES & CONTINUE LIES" Kaise ANGRY by Trump said he DON'T TAKE Anything of The Table |
From: Trump
Duration: 40:26
"TRUMP LIES, LIES & CONTINUE LIES" Kaise ANGRY by Trump said he DON'T TAKE Anything of The Table
|
Trump - from Huffington Post
-
| Trump - from Huffington Post from Michael_Novakhov (1 sites) |
|---|
| Donald Trump: Trump’s Excessive ‘Executive Time’ |
Leaked White House schedules show President Donald Trump mostly spends his days in “executive time”, an unstructured period of the day between meetings where he seemingly does very little.  |
Trump Investigations News In 25 Posts
-
| Trump Investigations from Michael_Novakhov (42 sites) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠: If you know yourself and if you know your enemy... - 10:54 AM 2/4/2019 | ||
Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠ - 25
Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠putinistan - Google Searchputinistan - Google Searchputinistan - Google Searchputinistan - Google Searchputinistan - Google Searchputinistan - Google Searchputinistan - Google SearchIf you know yourself and if you know your enemy, you should not fear a thousand battles - Google SearchThe "attempt at state capture by an international crime syndicate." This is so obvious, and since 2016. The issues are: why and how all these bad things are happening, and why now? - M.N. - 7:14 AM 2/4/2019masha gessen - Google SearchThe Trump-Russia Investigation and the Mafia Statetrump putin russia mueller - Google Searchtrump putin russia - Google Searchtrump putin russia - Google Searchtrump putin russia - Google Search | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Politics: Democrats in 2020: Preaching unity, taking different paths | ||
Similar on policy and opposition to Trump, they split over the route to the White House.    | ||
| "elections 2016 russian ads on social media" - Google News: Election committee asks Facebook to tighten political ad rules now, not in March - The Times of Israel | ||
Election committee asks Facebook to tighten political ad rules now, not in March The Times of IsraelUnder pressure to stop campaign meddling, social media giant says it'll require identification of those who fund political ads starting sometime next month.  | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Palmer Report: Devin Nunes comes out swinging, punches himself in the face, falls down | ||
For a minute there, it looked like former House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes might have actually found the sense to join the winning team. He’s holding a not-yet-punched one way ticket to prison, and his only possible way of ripping it up would be to begin working with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, after having spent the past two years illegally trying to sabotage Mueller. But now Nunes has come out swinging, and he’s revealed he’s still on the team that’s going to land him in prison. We suppose Devin Nunes was just taunting us in December when he briefly rubbed two brain cells together and held a vote to turn over the House Intel Committee’s transcript of Roger Stone’s testimony to Robert Mueller. These kinds of helpful moves could actually end up reducing Nunes’ own prison sentence. But now that Mueller has predictably used that transcript to indict and arrest Stone, it looks like Nunes is having second thoughts, and has decided to revert back to his usual routine of idiocy. For instance, Devin Nunes has since announced on Fox News that, even though he and his party have lost majority control over the House Intel Committee, he’s still going to make phony criminal referrals to the Department of Justice against the FBI leaders who have been dishonestly targeted by Donald Trump. First of all, this would represent felony obstruction of justice on Nunes’ part. Second, Nunes doesn’t appear to understand that he’s no longer in charge of the committee. He’s citing as precedent the criminal referrals made by the Senate Judiciary Committee, while apparently failing to grasp that it’s under Republican majority control, and his own House Intel Committee no longer is. The post Devin Nunes comes out swinging, punches himself in the face, falls down appeared first on Palmer Report. | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Just Security: India’s Digital Path: Leaning Democratic or Authoritarian? | ||
Digital authoritarianism, defined broadly as wielding technology to enhance or enable authoritarian governance, is spreading around the world. While the Economist Intelligence Unit’s annual Democracy Index found that, on a global level, “democracy stopped declining in 2018” for the first time in three years, the researchers cautioned that it may be merely a “pause.” In 2019, the volatility in states’ governance is likely to be exacerbated, as more countries adopt China’s methods of using technology for oppressive social control. As the two largest democracies in the world, India and the United States should be working together to combat this abuse of technology. But India, by far the larger of the two with a population of 1.3 billion that is second globally only to China, has recently made some troubling changes to its technology policies. The results look more Chinese than American or European, and risk reverberating more widely. Former Facebook chief security officer Alex Stamos wrote recently on Twitter, “India…will set the boundaries within which the developing world will interact with the US tech giants.” India in 2018 In a couple of aspects, 2018 appeared to be a positive year for technology policy in India. A framework for protecting the privacy of data came closer to passage, and the government approved net neutrality rules to ban “any form” of data discrimination. That prohibition stands out particularly in comparison to digital authoritarians like Iran that allow providers to hike the cost of access for certain sites. At the same time, India made a number of worrisome changes. India led the world in imposed internet blackouts last year. At least 100 times, by Freedom House’s count, authorities “temporarily shut down mobile networks or blocked social media apps” during political unrest (riots, protests, etc.). That was not a good sign for internet freedom in India. This is a growing trend. In more and more countries, authorities can exert control relatively easily over parts of the internet or other communications infrastructure, whether because infrastructure is centralized or the government has extraordinary authority, or both. India, under the nationalist government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, also has taken more positions at the United Nations that support restrictions on internet openness. In November, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a Russia-backed cybercrime resolution that was opposed by every country that explicitly favors a global and open internet. (Russia, China, and other authoritarians have a history of claiming they are “bolstering cybersecurity” or “fighting cybercrime,” as Russia asserted in this case, to tightly control and censor the web.) India voted with Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and a number of other authoritarians on the proposal, despite previously voting in favor of both authoritarian and democratic cyber norms. India also heightened use of artificial intelligence-enabled facial recognition in urban centers for identifying criminals and tracking persons of interest. While perhaps a useful tool for law enforcement in certain instances, such capabilities—without appropriate checks and balances—can easily be turned against the likes of political dissidents and rights activists. And while the messaging application WhatsApp, which the New York Times reports has a quarter billion users in India, played an increasingly important role in aiding information-sharing during the Indian elections, it also became an insidious mechanism for spreading misinformation, so much so that it sometimes resulted in riots and even fatalities. Unfortunately, to address the issue, the government relied even more frequently on internet blackouts. The government even floated a plan to create a hub for monitoring all social media activity in the country. Authorities dropped that proposal after a public backlash and a Supreme Court justice’s comment that it seemed a move toward creation of a “surveillance state.” Still, the Supreme Court upheld the government’s use of a massive biometric identification system, Aadhaar, which was rolled out as early as 2010 but “retroactively legalized” in 2016. Deployed, purportedly, to help with delivery of public assistance programs, experts expressed fears that its effect would be similar to that of the national identity card program that China seems to be exporting to Venezuela. Aadhaar has been criticized for posing a similar threat of social control. Even India’s draft data-privacy law isn’t as it might first appear. As Chinmayi Arun of National Law University in New Delhi points out, it contains a data localization clause requiring information on Indian citizens to be stored within India’s borders. While sometimes touted as a way to keep data away from prying foreign eyes (although it’s unclear if that works in practice, in any case), data localization also can make it easier for law enforcement to access that information. Of course, this could be a positive in many cases for combating crime and terrorism. But sometimes, authorities using data localization have a more insidious motive. In China and Russia, data localization is used as top cover for law enforcement and intelligence services to attain better access to user data, encryption keys, and other important information that may normally be hosted on servers outside the country’s borders. Furthermore, Arun adds, the data privacy law would expand the government’s right to view information for “security” reasons and would establish regulatory structures with insufficient independence. India in 2019 Just a few weeks into the new year, the Indian Supreme Court is considering a challenge to a sweeping surveillance orderthat was passed in December 2018. It gives 10 government agencies the authority to “tap, intercept, and decrypt all personal data on computers and networks.” Such a power would be deployed in a country that already lacks robust oversight mechanisms for data use by law enforcement and intelligence services. Indeed, many problems from the order stem from a provision in the parent Information Technology Act (2009). As one of many voices harshly criticizing the proposal, the president of India’s Congress has called Modi an “insecure dictator” for his apparent need to spy on citizens. Even more recently, India’s telecommunications regulator, the Information Technology Ministry, has asked for feedback on rules to access encrypted messages sent over services like WhatsApp. The rules also include specifications by which the government could mandate these same companies to “trace and remove objectionable content” within 24 hours. China and Russia both have a history of demanding access to—or at least trying to indirectly access—encryption keys, effectively creating their own “backdoors” into digital systems and devices. India’s proposal is similarly dangerous for human rights, and rings quite similar. The same goes for India’s stance on censorship. Netflix and other companies recently have “bowed to pressure [from the Indian government] and promised not to show content that disrespects the national flag or religions or that promotes terrorism.” This once again rings similar to practices in China and Russia, where the government asks companies to censor content on its behalf. Netflix recently complied with a similar censorship request in Saudi Arabia. While there may be legitimate concerns about viral misinformation within a country, the authority to censor with little oversight is dangerous on its face. The Future India still has democratic processes in place, but it slipped from 32nd place globally in 2016 to 42nd place in 2017 on The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, and stayed about he same at 41st in 2018. The country was classified as “partly free” in Freedom House’s 2017 Freedom on the Net report, and while it remained that way in the 2018 report, the organization noted increases in limits on internet content and obstacles to internet access. On Jan. 18, Shashi Tharoor, an opposition member of India’s parliament and former under-secretary general of the United Nations, wrote that recent technology policy incidents are “not isolated” and instead “are part of the Modi government’s pattern of seeking more and more digital control over and surveillance of its people.” He cited a pattern of looking to use biometric identification systems and other surveillance programs to enable social control. In other words, India’s recent actions aren’t promising for advancing democratic global norms for the internet and the role of digital technology in society. Ideally, the United States and India would work together to realize and advocate the economic value of a global and open internet. In the meantime, Western tech companies operating in India should work with the government to fight misinformation in ways that do not lend themselves to arbitrary or unchecked government censorship. India has been known to push back against the influence of American tech giants. Given its unclear stance on internet governance, it’s particularly important to track tech policies coming out of the country. India and the United States hold important influence over global norms for the use and regulation of contemporary technology in society. Their joint leverage would make them world leaders in countering China’s model of digital authoritarianism. IMAGE: Supporters of the opposition Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) party block road traffic as they protest against the Punjab government and police for allegedly fraudulent votes being cast in local elections, outside a polling station in Naushera village on the outskirts of Amritsar on Dec. 30, 2018. (Photo by NARINDER NANU/AFP/Getty Images) | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Politics: The Technology 202: Facebook is having trouble keeping its fact-checking partners | ||
Snopes's departure is a blow to the social network's fight against disinformation.    | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Lawfare - Hard National Security Choices: The Week That Will Be | ||
Event Announcements (More details on the Events Calendar)
Tuesday, Feb. 5 at 10:30 a.m.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies will host an event on the digital dimensions of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative entitled China’s Digital Silk Road. The panel will include Dr. Robert Atkinson, Lt. Gen. William Mayville (Ret.), Emily Rauhala and moderator Kate O’Keeffe, along with additional remarks by Matthew P. Goodman, Tetsuro Fukunaga and Jonathan E. Hillman. Register to attend.Tuesday, Feb. 5 at 2:30 p.m.: The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace will host House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot Engel for a discussion entitled Rep. Eliot Engel on the Foreign Policy Priorities of the New Democratic Majority. Carnegie Endowment President William J. Burns will moderate. Watch the livestream. Wednesday, Feb. 6 at 10:00 a.m.: The Senate Committee on Armed Services will hold a Worldwide Threats Hearingfeaturing testimony from Director of National Intelligence Daniel R. Coats and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Robert P. Ashley Jr. More details here. Wednesday, Feb. 6 at 1:00 p.m.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies will hold an event entitled Mitigating Security Risks to Emerging 5G Networks featuring a keynote from Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission Jessica Rosenworcel, and a panel including Travis Russell, Chris Boyer, Ambassador Robert Strayer and moderator Clete Johnson. Register to attend. Wednesday, Feb. 6 at 2:00 p.m.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies will hold an event on Russia’s Policy in Afghanistan featuring CSIS experts Ivan Safranchuk and moderator Jeffrey Mankoff. The event will focus on current Russian foreign policy developments in Afghanistan since 1989. Register to attend. Thursday, Feb. 7 at 10:00 a.m.: The Brookings Institution will host former Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni for a conversation on Italy, Europe, and the future of trans-Atlantic relations, featuring an introduction from Brookings President John R. Allen and conversation with Thomas Wright. Register to attend. Friday, Feb. 8 at 9:30 a.m.: The House Committee on the Judiciary will hear testimony from Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker for the first congressional oversight hearing of the 116th Congress. More details here. Friday, Feb. 8 at 10:00 a.m.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies will host a Discussion with the Secretaries of the U.S. Military Departments on the state of the services. Speakers will include Secretary of the Army Mark Esper, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson and moderator Kathleen H. Hicks. Watchthe livestream.
Employment Announcements (More details on the Job Board)
Intern – International Humanitarian Law, ICRC Washington DelegationOBJECTIVE: The Intern in the IHL Department at the Washington Regional Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) provides research and writing on topics of IHL, other branches of international law, and U.S. law as needed, thus contributing to the thematic and operational priorities of the legal team.Fellowship Program, Aspen Tech Policy Hub At the Aspen Tech Policy Hub, we take tech experts, teach them the policy process through an in-person fellowship program in the Bay Area, and encourage them to develop outside-the-box solutions to society’s problems. We model ourselves after tech incubators like Y Combinator, but train new policy thinkers and focus the impact of their ideas. We’re building new ideas for policymaking — every fellow must complete one practical policy output during their time with us — and an alumni base of technologists who understand policy and want to engage with it.Advocacy Counsel, Human Rights First JOB TITLE: Advocacy CounselNational Security Fellow, Third Way Third Way’s National Security Program is seeking a fellow to join a dynamic team that is providing elected officials, policy makers, and candidates with a foundation to address many critical security topics. The program crafts tough and smart security agendas with a focus on global hotspots, national security law, budgets, and public opinion. The team identifies pragmatic solutions for high-profile national security problems that have complex politics, with a focus on legislation. This position will be filled by a hard-working, self-motivated individual who is interested in learning more about how Congress and the Executive Branch interact in developing national security policy across a range of issues – military, intelligence, and foreign policy.
Summer Law Fellow/Summer Policy Fellow, Privacy and Civil Liberties Overight Board (PCLOB)
Attorney-Advisor, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB)JOB TITLE: Summer Law Fellow / Summer Policy Fellow JOB TITLE: Attorney-Advisor The Central Intelligence Agency is seeking highly qualified candidates to join CIA’s Office of General Counsel. We are actively recruiting exceptional attorneys with a wide variety of backgrounds and experience levels. We seek attorneys with experience in areas including government contracts, technology and cyber-related law, national security law, employment, ethics, privacy, litigation, and federal appropriations law, among others. Prior national security experience is welcome but not required. If this opportunity sounds interesting to you, please visit our website for additional information and application instructions.Associate General Counsel, Office of the Director of National Intelligence Paralegal, Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI/OGC is currently looking for a paralegal to support a full range of activities in our office from litigation to legislation and congressional oversight to ethics. The individual selected for this position should, among the other qualifications listed in the advertisement, have exceptional legal research and writing skills, be well organized, and have the ability to manage multiple projects.Legal Intern, Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI/OGC has an open internship announcement for current law students who have an interest in working in the Intelligence CommunityCyber Policy Initiative Research Scholar, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a unique global network of policy research centers, is seeking a research scholar for its Washington, DC-based Cyber Policy Initiative. This scholar will lead and contribute to projects on managing cyber conflict, reducing cyber risks to international stability, and developing innovative commercial incentives for cybersecurity.Executive Director, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board JOB TITLE: Executive DirectorAssistant Professor in Cybersecurity Policy, The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy at Tufts University Tufts University: The Fletcher School of Law & Diplomacy | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): "organized crime and intelligence" - Google News: OVERVIEW: Former KZN Hawks head Booysen cross-examined by Jiba's legal team at #MokgoroInquiry - News24 | ||
OVERVIEW: Former KZN Hawks head Booysen cross-examined by Jiba's legal team at #MokgoroInquiry News24The Mokgoro Inquiry into the fitness of advocates Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi to hold office continued with testimony from former KZN Hawks head ...  | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Donald Trump: Trump’s Excessive ‘Executive Time’ | ||
Leaked White House schedules show President Donald Trump mostly spends his days in “executive time”, an unstructured period of the day between meetings where he seemingly does very little. | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): "Trump FBI file" - Google News: Gannett turns down $1.36B buyout offer | KECI - NBC Montana | ||
Gannett turns down $1.36B buyout offer | KECI NBC MontanaMCLEAN, Va. (AP) — The publisher of USA Today and other newspapers is rejecting a $1. 36 billion buyout from a hedge-fund backed media group with a ...  | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): "organized crime and Russian intelligence" - Google News: Trump misleads Americans about his ties to those charged in the Russia investigation - Haaretz | ||
Trump misleads Americans about his ties to those charged in the Russia investigation HaaretzThe charges say the Russian defendants, using a persona known as Guccifer 2.0, in August 2016 contacted a person in touch with the Trump campaign to offer ... | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): "putin won US 2016 election" - Google News: Trump misleads Americans about his ties to those charged in the Russia investigation - Haaretz | ||
Trump misleads Americans about his ties to those charged in the Russia investigation HaaretzThe charges say the Russian defendants, using a persona known as Guccifer 2.0, in August 2016 contacted a person in touch with the Trump campaign to offer ... | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Donald Trump: Trump Embarks On State-By-State Effort To Challenge GOP Opponents | ||
The president's campaign is taking steps to change state party rules, crowd out potential rivals and quell any early signs of opposition.  | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Just Security: Human Rights, Deprivation of Life and National Security: Q&A with Christof Heyns and Yuval Shany on General Comment 36 | ||
Editor’s note: This Q&A with two members of the United Nations Human Rights Committee opens our new mini-series on the national security implications of the Committee’s interpretation of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as set forth in its most recent Comment, General Comment 36. 1. Extraterritorial jurisdiction GOODMAN: How would you describe the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as defined by General Comment 36, compared to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the European Convention of Human Rights, as defined by the European Court of Human Rights? Does the General Comment reject the approach of the European Court of Human Rights and, if so, why? What State activities, if any, might the ICCPR reach that the European Convention would not under these two approaches? HEYNS AND SHANY: The General Comment does not reject the position on extraterritorial jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, since – like the latter institution – it supports the application of the Covenant in cases involving spatial control and control over persons (see e.g., para. 63). Still, the General Comment does suggest that there would be additional situations covered by the Covenant, where state activity in its territory or outside the territory has direct and reasonably foreseeable impact on the ability of individuals to enjoy their right to life. Such an approach has already been applied by the Committee when reviewing the use of lethal force by drones in foreign territory (Concluding Observations: USA (2014)). It has also been applied in other contexts to review foreign surveillance programs (Concluding Observations: USA (2014) Concluding Observations: UK (2015)). The Committee was of the view that such an interpretation is consistent with the approach already taken in General Comment 31, which read jurisdiction as involving the application of governmental power, and that such an interpretation avoids the protection gaps that a narrower approach entails, without imposing on states unreasonable and unforeseen obligations.2. Jus ad bellum/the resort to force GOODMAN: The General Comment sets forth that States that “engaged in acts of aggression as defined in international law, resulting in deprivation of life, violate ipso facto article 6 of the Covenant.” Does that proposition mean that the Committee has the competence to determine whether an act of aggression occurred? Likewise, does this understanding of the right to life, as a general matter, mean that other human rights bodies also presumably have the competence to determine whether a State has engaged in an act of aggression? HEYNS AND SHANY: The interpretation embraced by the General Comment is that the term arbitrarydeprivation of life in the ICCPR also has to be construed in light of other relevant norms of international law. Hence, a loss of life directly resulting from an act or omission in violation of another relevant norm of international law, such as the norms of IHL, jus ad bellumor other basic human rights norms, would be regarded ipso facto as a violation of the right to life. The Committee may, in such circumstances, evaluate conformity of the relevant state conduct with the background norms that would determine whether or not the deprivation of life was arbitrary. Still, the Committee would have to tread very carefully when evaluating, indirectly, compliance with norms which fall outside the four corners of its core expertise and which its procedures are not optimally geared to ascertain, such as obligations drawn from jus ad bellum.3. Use of lethal force under international humanitarian law and human rights law GOODMAN: The General Comment states, “Use of lethal force consistent with international humanitarian law and other applicable international law norms is, in general, not arbitrary” (emphasis added). What uses of force that are consistent with international humanitarian law could still be arbitrary under the ICCPR? It would be very helpful to know via some examples. Might that residual category include, for instance, an obligation to capture rather than kill when use of lethal force is clearly unnecessary to stop a threat from a suspected combatant (if there were no such obligation under international humanitarian law)? Might the residual category apply to the long-term public health consequences of military targeting operations if international humanitarian law considers such effects too remote to include in a proportionality analysis? Might the residual category include protections for religious and medical military personnel if those individuals were not covered by the principle of proportionality under international humanitarian law? Are these good examples for how we should think about the statement in the General Comment? HEYNS AND SHANY: The qualifier “in general” in the General Comment allows for the development of interpretations such as the ones listed in the question (but obviously does not require it). It also serves to emphasize that “arbitrary” deprivations of life are not necessarily confined to violations of the substantive norms pertaining to the right to life, such as the rules on the means and methods of warfare. Procedural shortcomings can also render a deprivation of life arbitrary, for example a failure to investigate potentially unlawful deprivation of life during armed conflict.Finally, since the Committee has taken the view that arbitrariness may also be construed in the light of other relevant norms of international law, including jus ad bellum, there may be circumstances where an act would be lawful under IHL and yet internationally unlawful, and thus arbitrary.4. Assistance to non-State actors GOODMAN: General Comment 36 sets forth that “States also have obligations under international law not to aid or assist activities undertaken by other States and non-State actors that violate the right to life” (emphasis added). The Comment does not cite prior Concluding Observations or Views of the Committee in the note accompanying this proposition, but instead refers to the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility and the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia Genocide Case. Is it fair to read General Comment 36 as recognition that as a matter of customary international law the rule in Article 16 of the Articles of State Responsibility may also apply to State aid and assistance to non-State actors? HEYNS AND SHANY: To the extent that international law imposes on non-state actors’ obligations to respect and ensure the right life, the Committee was of the view that there is no reason to limit the duty on state parties not to aid or assist to violations of relevant obligations by other states only. In adopting this approach, the Committee has followed the decision of the ICJ in Genocide (Bosnian & Herzegovina v Serbia), which similarly drew inspiration from article 16 to analyze the notion of complicity in genocide. Although it did not purport to offer a new interpretation of article 16, its position can be regarded as supportive of the need for such a new interpretation.5. Types of legal obligations GOODMAN: Some critics may claim that General Comment 36, in some places, elevates “soft law” norms into binding treaty obligations. The General Comment, for example, states: “all operations of law enforcement officials should comply with relevant international standards, including the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (General Assembly resolution 34/169)(1979) and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990);”How do you respond to that line of criticism? HEYNS AND SHANY: The Committee devoted considerable attention to draw careful lines between signifying binding international standards, and “soft law” standards, by using the standard terms such as “must” and “shall” for the former, and “should” for the latter. At the same time, law evolves constantly, and there are grey areas. A comprehensive picture of a field of international law which is expected to stand the test of time for a few decades cannot be drawn by focusing only on those rules about the authority of which there is no dispute. Many “soft law” standards become custom over time or reflect general principles of law. For example, the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials has in many respects undergone and indeed contributed to such an evolution, and the Minnesota Protocol is well placed to play the same role as far as the procedural elements are concerned. In formulating a General Comment, it is inevitable that some calls will have to be made on grey areas in which evolution may be occurring. IMAGE: Numerous national flags are seen in front of the United Nations Office in Geneva, Switzerland. (Photo by Johannes Simon/Getty Images) | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Politics: Trump says Booker has no chance of being president. Booker says Americans don’t need a leader who puts people down. | ||
The Democratic White House hopeful responded Monday to Trump’s assessment that he knows Booker and he’s “got no chance.”    | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Politics: The Daily 202: Northam imbroglio suggests a #MeToo moment on race has arrived | ||
Swift calls for Va. governor’s resignation show less tolerance for racial misconduct than in the past.    | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): "Trump FBI file" - Google News: Jury set for deliberations at US trial of El Chapo - KVAL | ||
Jury set for deliberations at US trial of El Chapo KVALNEW YORK (AP) — After nearly three months of testimony about a vast drug-smuggling conspiracy steeped in violence, a jury is due to begin deliberations ...  | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): "Trump anxiety" - Google News: Trump Anxiety Disorder: How the US President is Affecting Mental Health of Americans - LatestLY | ||
Trump Anxiety Disorder: How the US President is Affecting Mental Health of Americans LatestLYPsychologists have noticed that people often bring up Trump's name during therapy, expressing their fear of his policies and rhetoric. Trump Anxiety Disorder: ... | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): "trump anxiety" - Google News: Trump Anxiety Disorder: How the US President is Affecting Mental Health of Americans - LatestLY | ||
Trump Anxiety Disorder: How the US President is Affecting Mental Health of Americans LatestLYPsychologists have noticed that people often bring up Trump's name during therapy, expressing their fear of his policies and rhetoric. Trump Anxiety Disorder: ... | ||
| 1. Trump from Michael_Novakhov (198 sites): Donald Trump | The Guardian: Trump: talk of impeachment is sign Democrats can’t win in 2020 | ||
On eve of State of the Union address, Trump’s popularity is drastically low, at an average of 39.5%, according to polls Talk of impeachment, Donald Trump said in remarks broadcast on Monday, is a sign Democrats know they cannot beat him in 2020. Related: State of the disunion: why Democrats must not give in to Trump’s hateful speech | Robert Reich Related: Why the 'likability' question pursues 2020 female candidates even as they make history Continue reading... | ||
| Michael Novakhov - SharedNewsLinks℠: putinistan - Google Search | ||
 |
Trump Investigations.
Comments
Post a Comment