In an interview on “Fox & Friends,” Trump referenced proposals from Democrats in the coronavirus stimulus negotiations that would have vastly increased funding for absentee and vote-by-mail options. The final package included $400 million for the effort, which was far less than what Democrats had sought. “The things they had in there were crazy,” Trump said. “They had things — levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”
levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again
Name:
Anonymous2020-05-28 22:43
>>79 The problem is "cruel compassion", where by defending a person or group they actually make their situation worse. Increasing polarization, in this case.
Name:
Anonymous2020-05-28 23:21
>>81 Well, just deport all racists to Russia, and the problem will be solved.
Police force application should include psychological profiling for racism. You know something like MMPI test, but reinforced by social network profile. If a cop reposts white power memes, he should be just fired.
But no! Trump hires racists, and sends them to patrol the black neighborhood.
‘When the looting starts, the shooting starts’: Trump quotes Miami police chief’s notorious 1967 warning
In late 1967, as armed robberies and unrest gripped black neighborhoods in Miami, the city’s white police chief — a tough-talking former U.S. Army Cavalry officer who parted his hair straight down the middle — held a news conference “declaring war” on criminals.
The police, Chief Walter Headley warned, would use shotguns and dogs at his command. And then he uttered the phrase that President Trump drew from Friday morning on Twitter to denounce the unrest in Minnesota and elsewhere fueled by deadly police brutality.
“I’ve let the word filter down that when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” Headley said.
On Friday afternoon, Trump denied that he’d used the phrase as a threat. “It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement.," he tweeted.
President Trump said May 29 he didn't know the racially charged history behind "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," but that it's "very accurate." (The Washington Post)
In 1967, a Miami Herald report on Headley’s comments said “his men have been told that any force, up to and including death, is proper when apprehending a felon.”
Headley, the Miami police chief for 20 years, liked to brag that he was early to hire black police officers, though only white officers were allowed to be called “policemen.” Black officers were called “patrolmen.” By 1967, any semblance of outreach toward minorities became a non-starter for Headley.
“Community relations and all that sort of thing has failed,” he said during his news conference. “We have done everything we could, sending speakers out and meeting with Negro leaders. But it has amounted to nothing.”
He had a message for those in the black community.
“Don’t these people know that most of the crimes in the Negro districts are against Negroes?” he said, according to the Miami Herald. “Don’t they know we’re trying to protect Negroes as well as whites?”
In August of 1968, the city exploded during the Republican National Convention. Three days of violence left three people dead and 18 wounded. More than 200 people were arrested.
Headley wasn’t even in town. He was in North Carolina on vacation.
His officers “know what to do,” he said, according to the New York Times, apparently echoing his 1967 comment again: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”
Headley’s threats to kill caused massive upheaval and several investigations. The looting quote was echoed by others, including presidential candidate George Wallace, who uttered it on the campaign trail.
The chief died in November 1968, several months before a report on the unrest was released by the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence.
“Chief Headley,” the report said, “did not believe that community relations programs with minority groups are a part of the law enforcement responsibility, and he made no attempt to establish systematic communications with the Miami black community.”
The report continued: “Whether or not the policy of the Miami Police Department was actually as tough and as discriminatory as the published reports indicated, there was sufficient substance to them to keep the black community in a state of continued agitation during the next eight months from December 1967 to August 1968.”
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-03 7:21
The Virgin Categorical Imperative vs Chad The Golden Rule vs Thad Eye for an Eye vs Lad Society of Egoists
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-04 9:59
Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for 'glorifying violence' Warning on ‘when looting starts, shooting starts’ post risks further escalation of row between firm and president
Twitter has hidden one of Donald Trump’s tweets behind a warning that it “glorifies violence”, further escalating the social media company’s row with the US president.
The US president’s tweet, posted on Thursday night Washington time, warned people in Minneapolis protesting against the killing of a black man, George Floyd, by a white police officer that he would send the military to intervene if there was “any difficulty”.
“When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” Trump wrote, apparently quoting the former Miami police chief Walter Headley, who in December 1967 promised violent reprisals to protests over stop-and-frisk tactics.
Two hours later, Twitter added a notice to the tweet: “This tweet violated the Twitter Rules about glorifying violence. However, Twitter has determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the tweet to remain accessible.”
The warning was accompanied by a link to its policies about public interest exceptions.
For people visiting Trump’s Twitter timeline, or seeing the tweet retweeted on their feed, the warning obscures the content unless they tap to view it.
Users who try to reply to the tweet are instead presented with a second notice that reads: “We try to prevent a tweet like this that otherwise breaks the Twitter rules from reaching more people, so we have disabled most of the ways to engage with it.” Existing replies no longer appear below it.
The tweet’s spread will also be limited by Twitter’s algorithms, according to the company’s policy documents.
Early on Friday morning, the Trump administration responded by sending an identical tweet from the official White House account, placing Trump’s words in quotation marks, which was duly hidden by Twitter in turn. Trump himself sent several angry tweets, accusing Twitter of “doing nothing about all of the lies & propaganda being put out by China or the Radical Left Democrat Party”, and warning that “it will be regulated!”
The back and forth suggests neither Twitter nor Trump has any intention of backing down in their dispute, which erupted on Wednesday when the company applied a fact-checking label to the president’s tweets for the first time.
He had tweeted an accusation that California was using mail-in ballots to ensure a “rigged election” to which Twitter added a label reading: “get the facts about mail-in ballots”, which had a link to a “Twitter-curated” set of fact checks.
In response, the president signed an executive order that aims to remove Twitter’s protections against civil claims in cases where it acts as an “editor” rather than a publisher.
In a Twitter thread, the company explained its latest decision: “This tweet violates our policies regarding the glorification of violence based on the historical context of the last line, its connection to violence, and the risk it could inspire similar actions today.
“We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance.”
Twitter introduced its public interest exception in June 2019, after years of criticism for failing to consistently apply its rules to prominent public figures, particularly the president.
“There are certain cases where it may be in the public’s interest to have access to certain tweets,” the company said, “even if they would otherwise be in violation of our rules.”
Twitter said at the time it believed the response – hiding the tweet behind a warning and reducing its algorithmic distribution – struck “the right balance between enabling free expression, fostering accountability, and reducing the potential harm caused by these tweets”.
The company has taken action against Trump’s tweets before, for copyright infringement. Twice the president used unlicensed music in campaign videos – in an advert featuring the theme to the film Dark Knight Rises, and in a meme video set to Nickelback’s song Photograph. In both cases, the posts were removed without complaint from the president.
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-06 20:47
Arizona Representative Walt Blackman wants you to know that George Floyd was a criminal, not really a good person, and definitely "not a hero."
Not that he thinks Floyd deserved to be killed by a police officer, mind you. The Republican lawmaker from Snowflake — who, like Floyd, is black — points that out every few minutes in a lengthy video he posted to Facebook and Twitter today.
But the main theme of the video is that Floyd has a criminal background and "the left" should not put him on a pedestal.
Floyd died on May 25 when a Minneapolis cop arresting him on suspicion of passing a fake $20 bill snuffed out his life by kneeling on his neck for eight minutes. Video of Floyd's gruesome death inflamed people from coast to coast, pushing Americans into the streets for massive protests and resulting in a government crackdown that included nightly curfews. The now-fired officer, Derek Chauvin, has been charged with second-degree murder, and three other police who stood by as Floyd died have been charged with crimes.
"I DO NOT support George Floyd and I refuse to see him as a martyr," Blackman posted on his Twitter site on June 4 when he shared his video. "But I hope his family receives justice."
In the 47-minute video, Blackman is seen obtaining information from a viral video that right-wing activist Candace Owens published on Wednesday with essentially the same theme. Blackman rips the idea of putting Floyd's face on a T-shirt or portraying him as an "upstanding man."
"This individual is not cotton candy," he says. Floyd had been sent to prison five times, and once held a gun to the stomach of a pregnant woman while committing a home invasion with accomplices, Blackman says.
He admits "some people are going to be pissed off at me" for his comments, but "we shouldn't stand for this ... he is not a hero. He had a criminal background, he had criminal intent."
Blackman has at times been a champion of criminal-justice reform in the Legislature. Last year, he introduced a bill, unsuccessful in the end, that would have been among the most significant reforms in 25 years. He drew criticism from reform groups last year, though, when he voted for a bill that gave people a five-year sentence for possessing illegally even a small amount of fentanyl.
On Wednesday, Blackman told KFYI radio that Black Lives Matter was a "terrorist organization."
Facebook declines to take action against Trump statements Twitter responded to the president’s post, which suggested violence against protesters, by hiding it behind a warning label
As Twitter for the second time in a single week took unprecedented action against a tweet by Donald Trump, Facebook declined to take any enforcement action against the president’s statements.
Trump’s threatening statement on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram on Thursday night, “Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts,” echoed a racist 1960s police chief known for ordering patrols of black neighborhoods with shotguns and dogs. It was widely interpreted as a threat and potential incitement to violence against residents of the Twin Cities who have erupted in protest against the alleged police killing of George Floyd, a black man who begged for his life as a white police officer knelt on his neck for several minutes.
Twitter responded by invoking a policy it enacted in June 2019 to address the then-hypothetical situation of a major world leader violating its rules in a way that could cause real-world harm. The policy allows the company to maintain the tweet for the purpose of accountability and the public record, but hide it behind a warning label.
“We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance,” the company explained.
Facebook, on the other hand, left the Trump post on the platform. The company has explicit rules against speech that could inspire or incite violence, but it has taken no action against Trump’s statement. As of Friday evening, the Facebook post had been shared more than 65,000 times and received 196,000 likes, 32,000 heart emojis, and 6,600 laughing emojis.
The text was also overlaid on a photo of Trump for the president’s Instagram account, where it has received more than 433,000 likes.
And while Facebook has made a controversial decision to exempt politicians from its third-party factchecking process, there is no such exception for incitement to violence.
On Friday evening, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, defended Facebook’s decision to allow the post by arguing that Facebook has a policy to allow warnings of the use of force by state actors.
It was not immediately clear if that policy had ever been articulated by Facebook before. In 2019, a Facebook spokesperson declined to clarify the company’s policy around violence and hate speech by state actors on the record to the Guardian. The Guardian has contacted Facebook for comment.
In a post on his personal Facebook page, Zuckerberg also appeared to suggest that if Facebook had decided Trump’s post was intended to incite violence by civilians, they would have taken it down, writing, “Unlike Twitter, we do not have a policy of putting a warning in front of posts that may incite violence because we believe that if a post incites violence, it should be removed regardless of whether it is newsworthy, even if it comes from a politician.”
Zuckerberg also criticized Trump, saying: “Personally, I have a visceral negative reaction to this kind of divisive and inflammatory rhetoric … I disagree strongly with how the president spoke about this, but I believe people should be able to see this for themselves, because ultimately accountability for those in positions of power can only happen when their speech is scrutinized out in the open.”
Threats of violence by state actors on its platforms have long been a tricky topic for the company. Facebook was used by Buddhist extremists and military officials in Myanmar to incite hatred and violence against that country’s Muslim minority, the Rohingya, in 2017 – a campaign of ethnic cleansing that culminated in the killing of 25,000 Rohingya and the forced displacement of 700,000 more.
Facebook admitted to failings in Myanmar in 2018 and eventually banned many of the hate preachers and military leaders who had used the platform to inspire genocide.
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-11 23:33
So now that a person with a -berg name refused to apply his own rules against incitement to violence to Trump's post, will the /PoolOfLosers/ dissolve into a paradox?
When Harry, George, Tom, and Joe showed up at a warehouse outside Philadelphia rented by protesters, organizers were immediately suspicious. The men claimed to be “union carpenters” from the Scranton, Pennsylvania, area who built stages — just the kind of help the protesters needed. They were preparing for the Republican National Convention in 2000, where the party would be nominating George W. Bush. Across the country, allied organizers were planning similar protests for the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles.
One of the hallmarks of the social justice movement at the time was its puppets. Organizers were coming off successful protests in Seattle in November 1999 against the World Trade Organization, and in Washington, D.C., in April 2000, against the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and had managed to reshape the politics of globalization. Soaring papier-mache puppets, rolled through the streets on individually constructed floats, projected a festive air, capturing sympathetic media coverage and countering the authorities’ narrative that the protesters were nihilists simply relishing in property destruction.
The four carpenters were good with a hammer, but much about them had protesters wary they were in fact infiltrators. In conversation, “they were not very political or well informed,” recalled Kris Hermes, an organizer, in “Crashing the Party,” his memoir of the affair. They were older and more muscular than most protesters, he wrote, and they insisted on drinking beer while working, despite the organizers’ ban on drinking in the warehouse. In discussions and meetings, they asserted the right of protesters to destroy property and to physically resist arrest. The movement’s intentional lack of hierarchy left organizers with little ability to act on their suspicions of infiltration, even as they were becoming more deft at sussing out such provocateurs.
On August 1, the first full day of the Republican convention, police surrounded the warehouse, known as the “Ministry of Puppetganda,” executed mass arrests, and confiscated the puppets, floats, signs, and other materials to be used in upcoming marches. The police lied, publicly saying that organizers had been planning violent demonstrations and hinting darkly at bomb-making materials being hidden in the warehouse. That roundup presaged other mass arrests of protest leaders throughout the week, followed by beatings inside the jail and even a $1 million bond.
When the warrant for the warehouse raid was unsealed, it finally confirmed that Harry, George, Tom, and Joe had been state troopers assigned to infiltrate the group and produce a pretext for a raid. All of the charges against the puppeteers were eventually dropped, and the saga would eventually cost the city millions in lawsuit settlements (with much of the legal work led by radical attorney Larry Krasner, who is now Philadelphia district attorney).
It is a historical fact, as this episode illustrates, that law enforcement frequently infiltrates progressive political movements using agent provocateurs who urge others to engage in violence. It is also a historical fact that, more rarely, such provocateurs commit acts of violence themselves.
The media pays little attention to such infiltrators, for a variety of reasons. On the one hand, corporate media has never taken much enthusiasm in questioning government action in the midst of riots or major demonstrations, unless that action goes wildly over the line or targets members of the media. The subject of provocateurs is also fraught from the perspective of protesters and movement organizers, as it can lead to paranoia that undermines solidarity and movement building. It is often conflated with the trope of “outside agitators” and used by authorities or other opponents of the protesters to delegitimize the anger on display, giving some protesters or their supporters an incentive to downplay the reality of the provocations.
The intensity of the conversation around protests that turn violent, and the life-or-death consequences of winding up on the wrong side of public opinion, leaves little room for a nuanced discussion. Were such a conversation possible, it would be easy to talk about the difference between the anger of a crowd and the actions it ultimately takes. An angry crowd that remains nonviolent and engages in zero property destruction is no less legitimately angry than one that does. Often the only difference is in whether and how the anger is triggered and escalated.
In protests across the country over the past week, the clear actor escalating the violence generally hasn’t been a protester or even a right-wing infiltrator, but the police themselves. In rally after rally, people have observed that looting and destruction only began after police charged and beat a crowd, or fired tear gas or rubber bullets into it. In other cases, it can take just one act by a protester to light the spark. Given the chaotic nature of the protests, it’s probable that everyone being blamed for property damage has played some role. But as the protests continue, and President Donald Trump calls for ever more violent methods of repression, the possible role of police provocateurs in protests is worth bearing in mind.
In 2008, Francesco Cossiga, one of the most important political figures in post-World War II Italy, provided a rare glimpse behind the curtain at how the world looks to people at the top of governments facing large-scale protests.
Cossiga had served as prime minister and then president of Italy. Before that, in the late ’70s, he led the Ministry of the Interior. During that period, he was notorious for the brutality with which he put down left-wing demonstrations led by students. This is how the New York Times reported the situation in 1977: “Extremists among the students have created chaos in a number of Italian cities with a wave of shooting and destruction.”
As Silvio Berlusconi’s administration faced similarly threatening protests, Cossiga urged them to rerun his playbook:
[They] should do what I did when I was interior minister. … Pull back police from streets and colleges, infiltrate the movement with provocateurs ready for anything [emphasis added], and for ten days let protesters devastate shops, burn down cars, and set cities aflame. Then, emboldened by popular support … police should have no mercy and send them all to the hospital. Not arrest them, because prosecutors would just free them right away, but beat them all and beat the professors that encourage them.
The Times appears to have mentioned the possibility that government provocateurs were behind some of the violence once — and then not as fact, but as an accusation of “leftwing parties and newspapers.”
Cossiga had been a professor of constitutional law and was a centrist Christian Democrat. When he became prime minister in 1979, Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to Italy saw this as an “excellent development,” and Cossiga maintained a strong relationship with America. There is no direct line between Cossiga and today’s protests in the U.S. But his example indicates that it’s no fevered conspiracy theory to believe reasonable, reputable figures see provocateur tactics as legitimate — even if most of them are more circumspect in public.
The best documented use of provocateurs by the U.S. government occurred during the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Counter-Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO, from 1956 to 1971. The reason the documentation is available is because a group of citizens broke into an FBI office in Pennsylvania — coincidentally, just a short drive from the warehouse targeted by police in 2000 — and stole files that they then passed to the media. This, in turn, led to congressional investigations, which pried loose more information.
In one notorious example in May 1970, an informant working for both the Tuscaloosa police and the FBI burned down a building at the University of Alabama during protests over the recent Kent State University shootings. The police then declared that demonstrators were engaging in an unlawful assembly and arrested 150 of them.
In another well-known case, a man nicknamed “Tommy the Traveler” visited numerous New York State colleges, posing as a radical member of Students for a Democratic Society. He encouraged acolytes to kidnap a congressman and offered training in Molotov cocktails. Two students at Hobart College acted on his suggestions and firebombed the campus ROTC building. Eventually it came out that his full name was Tommy Tongyai, and he had worked both for local police and the FBI.
The list goes on and on from there. An FBI informant, who said he was also a member of the John Birch Society, helped assemble time bombs and placed them on an Army truck. (The John Birch Society now says it has no record of his membership.) An FBI informant in the radical political organization Weather Underground took part in the bombing of a Cincinnati public school. A prominent member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War — and FBI informant — pushed for “shooting and bombing,” and his advocacy apparently did indeed lead to a bombing and a bomb threat. An FBI informant in Seattle drove a young black man named Larry Ward to a real estate office that engaged in housing discrimination and encouraged him to place a bomb there; the police were waiting and killed Ward. Thirteen Black Panthers were accused of a plot to blow up the Statue of Liberty after receiving 60 sticks of dynamite from an FBI informant. After 28 people broke into a federal building to destroy draft files in 1971, an FBI informant bragged, “I taught them everything they knew.” All 28 were acquitted when his role was revealed.
The FBI also allowed informants within right-wing organizations to participate in violence against progressive activists. Gary Thomas Rowe, who infiltrated the Ku Klux Klan in 1960, provided the FBI with three weeks warning that the Klan was planning attacks on Freedom Riders arriving in Alabama from the north. The FBI stood by and allowed the attacks to occur. Local police gave the Klan 15 minutes to assault the activists. In those 15 minutes, the white supremacists — including Rowe — set the Freedom Rider bus on fire in an attempt to burn them alive.
Rowe may also have played a role in the infamous 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, which killed four young girls. He was in the car with three other Klansmen in 1965 when they chased down and murdered Viola Liuzzo, a mother of five from Detroit who’d traveled to Selma. Rowe received immunity for testifying against his compatriots, and was given a job as a U.S. Marshall by Lyndon Johnson’s attorney general.
Local police informants without apparent connections to the FBI got into the act too. A deputy sheriff enrolled as a student at SUNY Buffalo and helped students build and test bombs. Another informant posed as a student at Northeastern Illinois State College, led sit-ins for Students for a Democratic Society, and encouraged compatriots to sabotage military vehicles.
Soon after COINTELPRO was uncovered in 1971, the FBI announced that it was halting all such activities. Mark Felt, the assistant FBI director now also known to be the infamous “Deep Throat” source for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, later said that the bureau had made no effort to see that “constitutional values are being protected.”
When and whether the FBI ever stopped, however, is an open question. In 1975 an informant told the New York Times that he had engaged in COINTELPRO-like activities until he’d left the previous year. This included encouraging a Maoist group to blow up a bus at the 1972 GOP convention in Miami.
In any case, police forces in the U.S. continued the same tactics. In 1978, an undercover officer encouraged two hapless young activists to seize control of a television tower in Puerto Rico. When they arrived, they were gunned down by 10 policemen. Tellingly, when Puerto Rican government asked the FBI to investigate what happened, the FBI gave the government a clean bill of health. A top FBI official later called this a “coverup.”
After 9/11, the FBI got back in the business of encouraging violent acts in a big way — although they were generally much more careful to step in before the violence actually occurred. When journalist (and Intercept contributor) Trevor Aaronson examined U.S. prosecutions for international terrorism in the decade after the attacks, he found five examples of actual plots. By contrast, 150 people were indicted in sting operations that existed only thanks to the encouragement of the FBI and its informants. According to Aaronson, “the FBI is much better at creating terrorists than it is at catching terrorists.”
The same tactics have been used to generate purported domestic terrorism plots. In 2008 environmental activist Eric McDavid was sentenced to 20 years in prison for plotting to damage the Nimbus Dam in California. Eight years later, a judge ordered him released because the FBI had withheld evidence regarding a government informant. In 2012, the FBI and its informant essentially created a plot to blow up a bridge in Cleveland out of whole cloth, and dragged five Occupy activists into it.
Most recently, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division invented something called the “Black Identity Extremism” movement. As portrayed by an FBI report, the threat from the imaginary movement reads as strikingly similar to that allegedly posed by black organizations during the days of COINTELPRO. The National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives said this “resurrects the historically negative legacy of African American civil rights leaders who were unconstitutionally targeted and attacked by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.”
That brings us to the present day. On the one hand, this history doesn’t mean that the FBI or local police are currently acting as provocateurs during the current unrest. But it does mean that such activity is clearly one avenue that is open to U.S. police forces looking to undermine protests and escalate violence.
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-15 20:41
[They] should do what I did when I was interior minister. … Pull back police from streets and colleges, infiltrate the movement with provocateurs ready for anything [emphasis added], and for ten days let protesters devastate shops, burn down cars, and set cities aflame. Then, emboldened by popular support … police should have no mercy and send them all to the hospital. Not arrest them, because prosecutors would just free them right away, but beat them all and beat the professors that encourage them.
On Saturday, Fox apologized in an editor’s note posted to stories about CHAZ on its website, sayings its home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. The editor’s note also acknowledged the erroneous use of the Minnesota rioting photo to illustrate Seattle news. “Fox News regrets these errors,” the note stated.
Fox News runs digitally altered images in coverage of Seattle’s protests, Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone
Update: This story has been updated to include an apology Fox News posted on its website on Saturday.
Fox News published digitally altered and misleading photos on stories about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) in what photojournalism experts called a clear violation of ethical standards for news organizations.
As part of a package of stories Friday about the zone, where demonstrators have taken over several city blocks on Capitol Hill after Seattle police abandoned the East Precinct, Fox’s website for much of the day featured a photo of a man standing with a military-style rifle in front of what appeared to be a smashed retail storefront.
The image was actually a mashup of photos from different days, taken by different photographers — it was done by splicing a Getty Images photo of an armed man, who had been at the protest zone June 10, with other images from May 30 of smashed windows in downtown Seattle. Another altered image combined the gunman photo with yet another image, making it appear as though he was standing in front of a sign declaring “You are now entering Free Cap Hill.”
Fox’s site had no disclaimers revealing the photos had been manipulated. The network removed the images after inquiries from The Seattle Times.
In addition, Fox’s site for a time on Friday ran a frightening image of a burning city, above a package of stories about Seattle’s protests, headlined “CRAZY TOWN.” The photo actually showed a scene from St. Paul, Minnesota, on May 30. That image also was later removed.
The Fox News homepage on June 11 displayed an image from May 30 protests in St. Paul, Minnesota, to illustrate a story about Seattle’s Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.
In this Associated Press photo from May 30, a protester runs past burning cars and buildings on Chicago Avenue in St. Paul, Minnesota. (John Minchillo / The Associated Press)
In an emailed statement, a Fox News spokeswoman said: “We have replaced our photo illustration with the clearly delineated images of a gunman and a shattered storefront, both of which were taken this week in Seattle’s autonomous zone.”
That statement is inaccurate, as the gunman photo was taken June 10, while storefront images it was melded with were datelined May 30 by Getty Images.
On Saturday, Fox apologized in an editor’s note posted to stories about CHAZ on its website, sayings its home-page photos “did not clearly delineate” the splicing together of multiple images from different locations. The editor’s note also acknowledged the erroneous use of the Minnesota rioting photo to illustrate Seattle news. “Fox News regrets these errors,” the note stated.
The network’s misleading and faked images were published as the Capitol Hill zone — quickly labeled CHAZ — became a political flashpoint for conservatives nationally and a target of tweets by President Donald Trump, who has branded the demonstrators “domestic terrorists” and threatened federal action unless local officials “take back” the area.
National news outlets on Friday also continued to cite a now-withdrawn comment by a Seattle police commander suggesting protesters were extorting payments from businesses within CHAZ. Seattle police Chief Carmen Best walked back that statement on Thursday, saying the comment was based on rumor and social media. “We haven’t had any formal reports of this occurring,” she said.
The daily scene at CHAZ has mostly been peaceful, with artists painting an enormous “Black Lives Matter” street mural and people gathering for free food, music and documentary films.
However, armed individuals have appeared in the zone, which was occupied by protesters after Seattle police retreated as a de-escalation move following several nights in which police fired tear gas and flash-bang devices. Police said that was in response to projectiles being thrown at officers. At a news conference this week, Best said she disagreed with the decision to leave the precinct, saying its abandonment has led to increased 911 response times.
ORIGINAL IMAGE: This June 10 image shows a sign on a barrier at the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). It was used in the creation of digitally manipulated images published by Fox News. (Photo by David Ryder/Getty Images)
MANIPULATED IMAGE: This digitally manipulated image was published on the Fox News homepage on June 12 with stories about Seattle. The image combines scenes from two different June 10 photographs from Capitol Hill.
The June 10 photo of an unidentified man with a gun standing in front of a car in CHAZ was taken by Seattle freelance photographer David Ryder, who distributed the photo through Getty Images.
The image, as displayed on the Fox News website, was spliced with other photos, including a photo of a smashed retail storefront in May, making it look as though the scene was all playing out concurrently in the autonomous zone. “It is definitely Photoshopped,” confirmed Ryder. “To use a photo out of context in a journalistic setting like that seems unethical.”
Photojournalism ethics experts agreed.
“I think it’s disgraceful propaganda and terribly misrepresentative of documentary journalism in times like this, when truth-telling and accountability is so important,” said Kenny Irby, a photojournalism ethics educator and consultant. “There is no attribution. There is no acknowledgment of the montage, and it’s terribly misleading.”
Akili Ramsess, executive director of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), said ethical standards clearly prohibit alteration of photos in news accounts.
“For a news photo that is supposed to be of the moment, it is completely egregious to manipulate this the way they have done,” Ramsess said.
While photo illustrations that meld images can be OK in certain contexts, such as for features or opinion pieces, they need to be properly labeled, she said, adding that misleading mashups have no place in straight news coverage. The NPPA ethics code expressly forbids use of altered photos in news stories.
Fox News has “a responsibility to their public. It’s one thing for their opinion hosts to state whatever opinion they have, but for their online news platform, they have to follow the ethical norms of any news organization,” she said.
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-19 0:43
The image was actually a mashup of photos from different days, taken by different photographers — it was done by splicing a Getty Images photo of an armed man, who had been at the protest zone June 10, with other images from May 30 of smashed windows in downtown Seattle. Another altered image combined the gunman photo with yet another image, making it appear as though he was standing in front of a sign declaring “You are now entering Free Cap Hill.”
In addition, Fox’s site for a time on Friday ran a frightening image of a burning city, above a package of stories about Seattle’s protests, headlined “CRAZY TOWN.” The photo actually showed a scene from St. Paul, Minnesota, on May 30. That image also was later removed.
In other words, do not dare to investigate us over issues like those over which we impose sanctions on other countries.
I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
Executive Order on Blocking Property Of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court
Issued on: June 11, 2020
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) (NEA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the situation with respect to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its illegitimate assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and certain of its allies, including the ICC Prosecutor’s investigation into actions allegedly committed by United States military, intelligence, and other personnel in or relating to Afghanistan, threatens to subject current and former United States Government and allied officials to harassment, abuse, and possible arrest. These actions on the part of the ICC, in turn, threaten to infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States and impede the critical national security and foreign policy work of United States Government and allied officials, and thereby threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, has never accepted ICC jurisdiction over its personnel, and has consistently rejected ICC assertions of jurisdiction over United States personnel. Furthermore, in 2002, the United States Congress enacted the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7421 et seq.) which rejected the ICC’s overbroad, non-consensual assertions of jurisdiction. The United States remains committed to accountability and to the peaceful cultivation of international order, but the ICC and parties to the Rome Statute must respect the decisions of the United States and other countries not to subject their personnel to the ICC’s jurisdiction, consistent with their respective sovereign prerogatives. The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC’s transgressions, which may include the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members. The entry of such aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and denying them entry will further demonstrate the resolve of the United States in opposing the ICC’s overreach by seeking to exercise jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and our allies, as well as personnel of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction.
I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby determine and order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: (i) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General: (A) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States; (B) to have directly engaged in any effort by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States without the consent of that country’s government; (C) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any activity described in subsection (a)(i)(A) or (a)(i)(B) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or (D) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order. (b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.
Sec. 2. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the types of articles specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in this order, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 3. The prohibitions in section 1(a) of this order include: (a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 1(a) of this order; and (b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 4. The unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens determined to meet one or more of the criteria in section 1(a) of this order, as well as immediate family members of such aliens, or aliens determined by the Secretary of State to be employed by, or acting as an agent of, the ICC, would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and the entry of such persons into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, is hereby suspended, except where the Secretary of State determines that the entry of the person into the United States would not be contrary to the interests of the United States, including when the Secretary so determines, based on a recommendation of the Attorney General, that the person’s entry would further important United States law enforcement objectives. In exercising this responsibility, the Secretary of State shall consult the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions). The Secretary of State shall have the responsibility for implementing this section pursuant to such conditions and procedures as the Secretary has established or may establish pursuant to Proclamation 8693.
Sec. 5. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited. (b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 6. Nothing in this order shall prohibit transactions for the conduct of the official business of the Federal Government by employees, grantees, or contractors thereof.
Sec. 7. For the purposes of this order: (a) the term “person” means an individual or entity; (b) the term “entity” means a government or instrumentality of such government, partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization, including an international organization; (c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; (d) the term “United States personnel” means any current or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States, any current or former elected or appointed official of the United States Government, and any other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government; (e) the term “personnel of a country that is an ally of the United States” means any current or former military personnel, current or former elected or appointed official, or other person currently or formerly employed by or working on behalf of a government of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member country or a “major non-NATO ally”, as that term is defined by section 2013(7) of the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (22 U.S.C. 7432(7)); and (f) the term “immediate family member” means spouses and children.
Sec. 8. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 1 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
Sec. 9. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including adopting rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to me by IEEPA as may be necessary to implement this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may, consistent with applicable law, redelegate any of these functions within the Department of the Treasury. All departments and agencies of the United States shall take all appropriate measures within their authority to implement this order.
Sec. 10. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to submit recurring and final reports to the Congress on the national emergency declared in this order, consistent with section 401(c) of the NEA (50 U.S.C. 1641(c)) and section 204(c) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1703(c)).
Sec. 11. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE, June 11, 2020.
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-23 19:53
For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to section 1 of this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1 of this order.
American police has literally turned into a big crime syndicate itself. Edited on 26/06/2020 19:42.
Police is reform is not ever going to happen:
Police reform is not ever going to happen:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/06/22/no-us-police-reform-without-union-reform/
American police has literally turned into a big crime syndicate itself.
Name:
Anonymous2020-06-29 9:56
'Grotesque Abuse' of Authority as Trump Declares National Emergency Over ICC Probe of Alleged US War Crimes
"The Trump administration's contempt for the global rule of law is plain."
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R) holds a joint news conference on the International Criminal Court with Defense Secretary Mark Esper (R), at the State Department in Washington, DC, on June 11, 2020. President Donald Trump on Thursday ordered sanctions against any official at the International Criminal Court who prosecutes U.S. troops as the tribunal looks at alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. (Photo by Yuri Gripas/ Pool/ AFP via Getty Images)
The Trump administration renewed its attacks on the International Criminal Court on Thursday with President Donald Trump issuing an executive order imposing economic sanctions against ICC staff involved in the ongoing investigations into alleged war crimes by U.S. and Israeli forces, with travel restrictions also imposed on those ICC court officials and their family members.
"Trump's sanctions order against ICC personnel and their families—some of whom could be American citizens—is a dangerous display of his contempt for human rights and those working to uphold them."—Hina Shamsi, ACLU "President Trump is grossly abusing emergency powers to block one of the only avenues left for justice to victims of terrible American human rights violations," Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in response to the move. "He has repeatedly bullied international organizations, and is now playing directly into the hands of authoritarian regimes by intimidating judges and prosecutors committed to holding countries accountable for war crimes.
"Trump's sanctions order against ICC personnel and their families—some of whom could be American citizens—is a dangerous display of his contempt for human rights and those working to uphold them," said Shamsi.
The new order follows the court's March decision to greenlight an investigation into alleged war crimes committed by U.S. forces and others in Afghanistan—despite repeated bullying attempts by the administration to block that probe as well as the ICC's investigation of alleged war crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo—who signaled earlier this month that such a move was forthcoming—announced the administration's action at a press conference Thursday in which he accused the ICC of being a "kangaroo court" carrying out an "ideological crusade against American servicemembers" and warned that other NATO countries could "be next" to face similar investigations.
The executive order accuses the ICC of making "illegitimate assertions of jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and certain of its allies" and claims the court's probes "threaten the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
From Trump's executive order:
The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those responsible for the ICC's transgressions, which may include the suspension of entry into the United States of ICC officials, employees, and agents, as well as their immediate family members. The entry of such aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States and denying them entry will further demonstrate the resolve of the United States in opposing the ICC's overreach by seeking to exercise jurisdiction over personnel of the United States and our allies, as well as personnel of countries that are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction.
I therefore determine that any attempt by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute any United States personnel without the consent of the United States, or of personnel of countries that are United States allies and who are not parties to the Rome Statute or have not otherwise consented to ICC jurisdiction, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
In a lengthy Twitter thread responding to the order, Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, framed the White House's action as "a grotesque abuse of emergency powers, on par with the president's declaration of a national emergency to secure funding that Congress had denied for building a border wall along the southern border."
That Trump said "the prospect of U.S. personnel being held accountable for war crimes is a *national emergency* (The war crimes themselves? Not so much.)" is "particularly galling because the U.S. uses this particular emergency power—the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)—to impose sanctions on foreign government officials who engage in human rights violations," tweeted Goitein.
"The president's abuse of emergency powers has itself become an emergency," she continued, "and if Congress does not act soon, the situation will only get worse."
"The Trump administration's contempt for the global rule of law is plain," tweeted Liz Evenson, associate international justice director at Human Rights Watch. "ICC member countries should make clear this bullying won't work."
Global report: Trump says he ordered coronavirus testing to 'slow down'
Testing a ‘double-edged sword’, says Trump; Chile death toll nearly doubles; Australian state ‘absolutely at risk’ of second peak
Sun 21 Jun 2020 06.00 BST
Donald Trump told thousands of supporters on Saturday that he had asked US officials to slow down testing for Covid-19 because case numbers in the country were rising so rapidly.
Speaking at a campaign rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the US president used racist language, referring to Covid-19 as “kung flu”, and described testing for the virus as a “double-edged sword” because it led to the identification of more cases.
The US had now tested 25 million people, far more than other countries, Trump said, adding: “When you do testing to that extent, you’re gonna find more people, you’re gonna find more cases. So I said to my people slow the testing down.”
A White House official later told Reuters that Trump was joking.
Across the US, more than 119,654 people are confirmed to have been killed by Covid-19, according to Johns Hopkins University. It remains the country worst hit by coronavirus, followed by Brazil, which now has more than a million cases, and Russia, which has 576,162 infections.
Trump said the “radical fake news” media had not given him credit for doing what he called “a phenomenal job” of responding to the outbreak.
The campaign rally in Tulsa went ahead despite warnings from health officials that it risked fuelling a spike in coronavirus cases. The crowd was smaller than expected, with many empty sections in the 19,000-seat arena, but few attendees wore masks.
Globally, 8,753,853 coronavirus cases have now been recorded and 463,281 fatalities confirmed, according to Johns Hopkins University.
The death toll in Chile rose especially sharply on Saturday, almost doubling to more than 7,000, after the government adjusted its data to include deaths that are probably linked to Covid-19. Official figures show there have been 236,748 infections in the country so far.
Meanwhile, several countries have reintroduced social curbs, or are considering doing so, to protect against a second wave of cases.
In Victoria, Australia’s second most populous state, case numbers are the highest they have been in more than two months, prompting the Chief Health Officer Brett Sutton to warn: “We are absolutely at risk of a second peak”.
The state has extended its state of emergency for another four weeks and limited the number of guests permitted to visit people’s homes to five. Plans to relax rules on the number of customers allowed in cafes, restaurants and pubs have also been put on hold.
German health officials have also reported a rise in transmission, following clusters of cases linked to meatpacking plants, logistics centres, and refugee shelters.
Greece has also announced another extension of the coronavirus lockdown on its migrant camps, despite warnings that migrants rights are being undermined by the restrictions.
The Palestinian Authority is among those tightening restrictions, after announcing on Saturday that it would temporarily close the cities of Hebron and Nablus in the occupied West Bank, following a sharp rise in infections.
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said he was considering making it mandatory within days to wear masks in public places, after the tally of confirmed coronavirus cases passed 200,000.
The developments follow last week’s warning from the head of the World Health Organization, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, that the world had entered “a new and dangerous phase” of the coronavirus pandemic.
“Countries are understandably eager to open up their societies and economies but the virus is still spreading fast, it is still deadly and most people are still susceptible,” he said on Friday. “We call on all countries and all people to exercise extreme vigilance.”
In other developments:
China reported 26 new confirmed coronavirus cases on Sunday, driven by the outbreak linked to a wholesale food centre in the south-west of Beijing.
The Philippines reported 578 new cases of coronavirus on Saturday, a record number. This includes test results that were released to patients over the past three days.
Two new Covid-19 cases have been detected in New Zealand, according to the Ministry of Health. One is the child of the couple returning from Delhi who were revealed as cases on Saturday, the second is a 59-year-old woman who also returned from Delhi, but at a later date – on June 15.
Serbians go to polls on Sunday to elect a new parliament in Europe’s first national election since coronavirus lockdowns took effect some three months ago.
An Italian collective brought 67 migrants to safety on Saturday, as the first charity rescue ship reached Italian shores since authorities had decided to close all ports because of the coronavirus pandemic in April.
Reuters and Agence France-Presse contributed to this report.
Giving UN globalists the finger is something i'd expect of Putin or Jinping.
On the contrary, Winnie the Pooh got a huge boost to his Belt and Road Initiative, and thereby to chinese power, by Trump pulling out of the TPP whose main goal was containing chinese influence.
Name:
Anonymous2020-07-01 12:34
>>118 It was a corporate power grab to dictate copyright and DRM. Educate yourself.
>>119 Your understanding is superficial, although your heart seems to be in the right place. All "free trade" treaties with ISDS type provisions are corporate power grabs, although "copyright and DRM" are far less important than circumventing the domestic legal system. But this doesn't single out the TPP. Within the group of treaties of this type, the defining characteristic of the TPP is that it was designed to contain chinese influence. The Pea-brainOTUS gave a huge boost to chinese influence by withdrawing.
“When you do testing to that extent, you’re gonna find more people, you’re gonna find more cases. So I said to my people slow the testing down.”