Democrats escalate impeachment bid in end-of-year dash - CNN

The rising stakes come as Republicans on Sunday launched a new offensive to destroy the legitimacy of the Democratic process by claiming that Trump's enemies are rushing the somber business of making him the third impeached President in order to dodge a voter backlash.

The attack could not, however, disguise a public debate in the GOP over how much Trump should engage in the next stage of impeachment, or whether he should await a likely trial in the Senate where a Republican majority could offer him more protection. The White House said Sunday that neither Trump nor his lawyers would take part in the first House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment on Wednesday.

Democratic leaders built a strong case in two weeks of televised witness hearings before the Thanksgiving break that Trump abused his power by attempting to coerce Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election.

But their efforts have not shifted the nation's tribal political divisions in a way that could seriously threaten Trump's presidency and cause Republicans to desert him in the Senate trial expected early next year.

The action now moves from Rep. Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, expected to vote to release the report of its investigation on Tuesday, to the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Jerry Nadler's panel will draw up articles of impeachment -- effectively the charges on which Trump would be tried in the Senate -- ahead of a full House vote expected before Christmas.

The committee will begin its business on Wednesday with an examination of the constitutional grounds for impeachment for which Nadler is yet to release a witness list. But the chairman offered Trump and his lawyers a chance to join Judiciary Committee proceedings, presenting them with a new tactical conundrum.

On Sunday evening, White House counsel Pat Cipollone told Nadler that the President and his lawyers would skip the hearing on Wednesday, and would respond later to a Friday deadline about participation in future hearings.

"We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings," Cipollone said.

Democratic leaders have already said that Trump's withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine allegedly in an attempt to force an investigation of a domestic political opponent -- Joe Biden -- could satisfy the offense of bribery included in the constitutional conditions for impeachment.

And the President's refusal to provide key evidence and senior officials for testimony to the investigation could be folded into a separate article of impeachment on obstruction.

Democrats are moving ahead without hearing from central witnesses, including Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani who led his off-the-books diplomatic effort in Ukraine, and former national security adviser John Bolton.

The legal challenges likely to be required to force such testimony could drag on for months and frustrate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desire to shield her lawmakers in election year 2020 by swiftly wrapping the impeachment process. And Democrats also say they already have sufficient evidence to impeach the President.

Minds made up

Raising the curtain for critical weeks in the political duel over the Trump presidency, Democrats on Sunday argued that the case against the commander-in-chief already merited impeachment.

And Republicans intensified their complaints about the fairness of the process and fanned Trump's disinformation campaign in a way that reflects their challenge in countering the facts of a case that became even more damning just before Thanksgiving.

In the latest blow to Trump's claims of innocence, The New York Times reported last week that Trump released the hold on aid to Ukraine after he was briefed on a whistleblower's report raising the alarm at his pressure on the former Soviet state.

Republicans previously argued that there was no quid pro quo because Ukraine eventually got the money. But the Times report raises the possibility that the congressionally mandated taxpayer payment was only freed up after Trump got found out.

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who is running for president, said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that she had all but made up her mind over Trump's fate.

"I'm someone that wants to look at every single count," Klobuchar said, but added: "I have made very clear I think this is impeachable conduct."

California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the only lawmaker to have worked on all three modern impeachments, said Trump's transgressions were worse than those that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation.

"If you take a look at ... what the founding fathers were concerned about, it was the interference by foreign governments in our political system that was one of their gravest concerns," Lofgren, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said.

"Nixon's behavior didn't fall into that range. So, in that way, this conduct is more serious," Lofgren told CNN's Dana Bash.

But Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy complained that the Democratic push for impeachment had been unfair from the start.

"Rounds one and two by Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff are as rigged as a carnival ring toss," Kennedy said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in an appearance in which he again appeared to draw equivalences between Russian and Ukrainian election meddling.

Republicans have alleged that Ukraine interfered in 2016 to give a pretext for Trump's claim he withheld aid because he wanted to investigate political corruption in Kiev.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, slammed Nadler's "made for TV event."

He complained that Republicans were not being given sufficient time to draw up witness lists given that the Intelligence committee would not vote on the Schiff report until Tuesday.

He said he didn't know if the White House would participate, but suggested Republicans want to call Schiff himself as a witness -- a step likely to be resisted by majority Democrats.

"It's an internal kind of time frame to try and finish this out by the end of the year because they want to get at this President right now before ... everybody completely sees through the process sham of the elections for next year. So we're rushing this," Collins said on "Fox News Sunday."

New tactical dilemma for the White House

Nadler's invitation to Trump to participate in his future hearings raises a dilemma for the White House -- especially after the President last week blasted Democrats as being "deranged" and "maniacs" for pursuing an impeachment probe.

By refusing to take part, Trump's team would be weakening their own arguments that Democrats are shutting them out of the process. But joining in would offer legitimacy to an investigation the President has dismissed as a sham and a hoax.

Nadler may be effectively laying a trap. If Trump's lawyers were to argue that his conduct does not reach the bar of impeachment they would implicitly be accepting that the President committed some kind of misconduct.

Trump has warned Republicans not to make such arguments, insisting his conduct -- including a call with Ukraine's president that shows him asking for a "favor" and a probe into Biden and his son Hunter -- is "perfect."

Trump's position increases political pressure on some Republican senators who are vulnerable in reelection races who might consider criticizing the President to give them political cover for a vote to acquit him.

One Republican Judiciary Committee member, California Rep. Tom McClintock, said it would be to the President's "advantage" to take part in the panel's proceedings. But he warned Trump had to weigh "enormous catastrophic damage" that could be done to the concept of executive privilege such a step might entail.

A White House official last week cast doubt on the sincerity of Nadler's offer, pointing out that Trump will be in London for the NATO summit during Wednesday's hearing.

Such debate highlights the challenge facing Nadler, a longtime antagonist of his fellow New Yorker Trump, as his committee takes the lead in driving the impeachment narrative.

Nadler's oversight efforts have so far been less successful in shaping a punchy, damaging case against the administration than Schiff's public hearings, which were disciplined and powerful and managed to largely neuter GOP efforts to disrupt them.

Can Democrats change the political game?

The coming weeks may offer the last best chance for Democrats to significantly alter the political temperature in the nation towards impeachment.

Although 50% of respondents approve of impeaching and removing Trump according to CNN polling, two weeks of televised hearings did not significantly change the equation.

The situation reflects the fact that perceptions of Trump's behavior generally follow partisan lines in a nation deeply polarized by his presidency. It also suggests that while Trump's apparent willingness to use his constitutional authority to pursue his own interests at the expense of the nation's appears to be an abuse of power, Ukraine is an issue that is remote for many Americans more concerned with considerations driving the 2020 election, including health care, education and the economy.

CNN's Sarah Westwood contributed to this story

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiXWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8xMi8wMi9wb2xpdGljcy9kZW1vY3JhdHMtanVkaWNpYXJ5LXRydW1wLWltcGVhY2htZW50LW5hdG8vaW5kZXguaHRtbNIBYWh0dHBzOi8vYW1wLmNubi5jb20vY25uLzIwMTkvMTIvMDIvcG9saXRpY3MvZGVtb2NyYXRzLWp1ZGljaWFyeS10cnVtcC1pbXBlYWNobWVudC1uYXRvL2luZGV4Lmh0bWw?oc=5

2019-12-02 11:25:00Z
52780451907398

Democrats escalate impeachment bid in end-of-year dash - CNN

The rising stakes come as Republicans on Sunday launched a new offensive to destroy the legitimacy of the Democratic process by claiming that Trump's enemies are rushing the somber business of making him the third impeached President in order to dodge a voter backlash.

The attack could not, however, disguise a public debate in the GOP over how much Trump should engage in the next stage of impeachment, or whether he should await a likely trial in the Senate where a Republican majority could offer him more protection. The White House said Sunday that neither Trump nor his lawyers would take part in the first House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment on Wednesday.

Democratic leaders built a strong case in two weeks of televised witness hearings before the Thanksgiving break that Trump abused his power by attempting to coerce Ukraine to intervene in the 2020 election.

But their efforts have not shifted the nation's tribal political divisions in a way that could seriously threaten Trump's presidency and cause Republicans to desert him in the Senate trial expected early next year.

The action now moves from Rep. Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, expected to vote to release the report of its investigation on Tuesday, to the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Jerry Nadler's panel will draw up articles of impeachment -- effectively the charges on which Trump would be tried in the Senate -- ahead of a full House vote expected before Christmas.

The committee will begin its business on Wednesday with an examination of the constitutional grounds for impeachment for which Nadler is yet to release a witness list. But the chairman offered Trump and his lawyers a chance to join Judiciary Committee proceedings, presenting them with a new tactical conundrum.

On Sunday evening, White House counsel Pat Cipollone told Nadler that the President and his lawyers would skip the hearing on Wednesday, and would respond later to a Friday deadline about participation in future hearings.

"We cannot fairly be expected to participate in a hearing while the witnesses are yet to be named and while it remains unclear whether the Judiciary Committee will afford the President a fair process through additional hearings," Cipollone said.

Democratic leaders have already said that Trump's withholding of nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine allegedly in an attempt to force an investigation of a domestic political opponent -- Joe Biden -- could satisfy the offense of bribery included in the constitutional conditions for impeachment.

And the President's refusal to provide key evidence and senior officials for testimony to the investigation could be folded into a separate article of impeachment on obstruction.

Democrats are moving ahead without hearing from central witnesses, including Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani who led his off-the-books diplomatic effort in Ukraine, and former national security adviser John Bolton.

The legal challenges likely to be required to force such testimony could drag on for months and frustrate House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desire to shield her lawmakers in election year 2020 by swiftly wrapping the impeachment process. And Democrats also say they already have sufficient evidence to impeach the President.

Minds made up

Raising the curtain for critical weeks in the political duel over the Trump presidency, Democrats on Sunday argued that the case against the commander-in-chief already merited impeachment.

And Republicans intensified their complaints about the fairness of the process and fanned Trump's disinformation campaign in a way that reflects their challenge in countering the facts of a case that became even more damning just before Thanksgiving.

In the latest blow to Trump's claims of innocence, The New York Times reported last week that Trump released the hold on aid to Ukraine after he was briefed on a whistleblower's report raising the alarm at his pressure on the former Soviet state.

Republicans previously argued that there was no quid pro quo because Ukraine eventually got the money. But the Times report raises the possibility that the congressionally mandated taxpayer payment was only freed up after Trump got found out.

Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, who is running for president, said on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that she had all but made up her mind over Trump's fate.

"I'm someone that wants to look at every single count," Klobuchar said, but added: "I have made very clear I think this is impeachable conduct."

California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the only lawmaker to have worked on all three modern impeachments, said Trump's transgressions were worse than those that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation.

"If you take a look at ... what the founding fathers were concerned about, it was the interference by foreign governments in our political system that was one of their gravest concerns," Lofgren, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said.

"Nixon's behavior didn't fall into that range. So, in that way, this conduct is more serious," Lofgren told CNN's Dana Bash.

But Louisiana Republican Sen. John Kennedy complained that the Democratic push for impeachment had been unfair from the start.

"Rounds one and two by Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff are as rigged as a carnival ring toss," Kennedy said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in an appearance in which he again appeared to draw equivalences between Russian and Ukrainian election meddling.

Republicans have alleged that Ukraine interfered in 2016 to give a pretext for Trump's claim he withheld aid because he wanted to investigate political corruption in Kiev.

Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, slammed Nadler's "made for TV event."

He complained that Republicans were not being given sufficient time to draw up witness lists given that the Intelligence committee would not vote on the Schiff report until Tuesday.

He said he didn't know if the White House would participate, but suggested Republicans want to call Schiff himself as a witness -- a step likely to be resisted by majority Democrats.

"It's an internal kind of time frame to try and finish this out by the end of the year because they want to get at this President right now before ... everybody completely sees through the process sham of the elections for next year. So we're rushing this," Collins said on "Fox News Sunday."

New tactical dilemma for the White House

Nadler's invitation to Trump to participate in his future hearings raises a dilemma for the White House -- especially after the President last week blasted Democrats as being "deranged" and "maniacs" for pursuing an impeachment probe.

By refusing to take part, Trump's team would be weakening their own arguments that Democrats are shutting them out of the process. But joining in would offer legitimacy to an investigation the President has dismissed as a sham and a hoax.

Nadler may be effectively laying a trap. If Trump's lawyers were to argue that his conduct does not reach the bar of impeachment they would implicitly be accepting that the President committed some kind of misconduct.

Trump has warned Republicans not to make such arguments, insisting his conduct -- including a call with Ukraine's president that shows him asking for a "favor" and a probe into Biden and his son Hunter -- is "perfect."

Trump's position increases political pressure on some Republican senators who are vulnerable in reelection races who might consider criticizing the President to give them political cover for a vote to acquit him.

One Republican Judiciary Committee member, California Rep. Tom McClintock, said it would be to the President's "advantage" to take part in the panel's proceedings. But he warned Trump had to weigh "enormous catastrophic damage" that could be done to the concept of executive privilege such a step might entail.

A White House official last week cast doubt on the sincerity of Nadler's offer, pointing out that Trump will be in London for the NATO summit during Wednesday's hearing.

Such debate highlights the challenge facing Nadler, a longtime antagonist of his fellow New Yorker Trump, as his committee takes the lead in driving the impeachment narrative.

Nadler's oversight efforts have so far been less successful in shaping a punchy, damaging case against the administration than Schiff's public hearings, which were disciplined and powerful and managed to largely neuter GOP efforts to disrupt them.

Can Democrats change the political game?

The coming weeks may offer the last best chance for Democrats to significantly alter the political temperature in the nation towards impeachment.

Although 50% of respondents approve of impeaching and removing Trump according to CNN polling, two weeks of televised hearings did not significantly change the equation.

The situation reflects the fact that perceptions of Trump's behavior generally follow partisan lines in a nation deeply polarized by his presidency. It also suggests that while Trump's apparent willingness to use his constitutional authority to pursue his own interests at the expense of the nation's appears to be an abuse of power, Ukraine is an issue that is remote for many Americans more concerned with considerations driving the 2020 election, including health care, education and the economy.

CNN's Sarah Westwood contributed to this story

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiXWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8xMi8wMi9wb2xpdGljcy9kZW1vY3JhdHMtanVkaWNpYXJ5LXRydW1wLWltcGVhY2htZW50LW5hdG8vaW5kZXguaHRtbNIBYWh0dHBzOi8vYW1wLmNubi5jb20vY25uLzIwMTkvMTIvMDIvcG9saXRpY3MvZGVtb2NyYXRzLWp1ZGljaWFyeS10cnVtcC1pbXBlYWNobWVudC1uYXRvL2luZGV4Lmh0bWw?oc=5

2019-12-02 10:53:00Z
52780451907398

Russia is now not the only pressing issue that NATO has to deal with - CNBC

US president Donald Trump is seen during his press conference at the 2018 NATO Summit in Brussels, Belgium on July 12, 2018.

NurPhoto | NurPhoto | Getty Images

As heads of state and government meet in the U.K. this week for the 70th anniversary of the military alliance NATO, discussions are likely to focus on shifting geopolitical relations and military threats, that thorny issue of defense spending and, crucially, the alliance's future.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said earlier this year that the summit on Dec. 3 and 4 will give members the opportunity to address "current and emerging security challenges and how NATO continues to invest and adapt to ensure it will remain a pillar of stability in the years ahead."

The summit on the outskirts of London comes at a tricky time for NATO with unsettled relationships countering older insecurities like its relations with Russia. Furthermore, the commitment of its most powerful member, the U.S., to the alliance is now more uncertain than ever.

"Rarely has NATO not been under verbal siege over these past few months," Judy Dempsey, a non-resident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, said in an editorial piece on Tuesday last week.

"The fact that that this meeting will not be called a summit shows how NATO's seventieth birthday is not being celebrated with great fanfare but instead with a degree of self-doubt, if not anxiety."

That anxiety comes after a tough few years for the alliance, especially when it comes to the issue of who pays the most. NATO agreed at a summit in Wales in 2014 to reverse the trend of declining defense budgets and to raise them over the coming decade, a move that was designed to "further strengthen the transatlantic bond." Then, members agreed to spend a minimum of 2% of their GDP (gross domestic product) on defense.

At last year's summit in Brussels, President Donald Trump chided other members of the group for not meeting spending targets agreed at the NATO summit in 2014.

Experts note that discussions at this NATO "Leaders Meeting," as it's being called, will be informed as much by issues not on the formal agenda as those that are.

"Member states will be keen to bring their political differences back behind closed doors, whilst emphasizing the military coherence and credibility of their alliance," Sarah Raine, consulting senior fellow for geopolitics and strategy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), told CNBC.

"The degree to which Europe should do more not just for itself, but also by itself, remains highly contentious. Assessment of the scope of NATO's engagement on China's challenge, including the U.S. push to include the issue of 5G within these discussions, risk further highlighting these sensitivities," she said.

Defense spending, again

Spending is likely to be a key issue again this week with the latest figures not making for comfortable reading. NATO estimates for 2019, released in June, show that only the U.S., U.K., Greece, Estonia, Romania, Poland and Latvia have met or surpassed that target. The highest defense spend was made by the U.S., at 3.4% of its GDP, while the lowest spend was by Luxembourg which only spent 0.55%.

Given the slow progress made by members, Trump is likely to be heavily critical again. Germany has been singled out for especially harsh treatment because of its budget surplus. The European nation only spent an estimated 1.36% of its GDP on defense spending in 2019, setting up another potential clash with the U.S.

US commitment to NATO

Defense spending, or the lack thereof, has created so much ire in Trump that there are reports that he frequently discussed pulling the U.S. out of the alliance, even with Congressional support.

In July, he also likened countries not meeting the defense spend target, like Germany, to delinquents.

"We're the schmucks that are paying for the whole thing," Trump said at a rally in July. "Frankly, many countries owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back, where they're delinquent, as far as I'm concerned, because the United States has had to pay for them," singling out Germany as "the number one" culprit.

Perhaps the only thing Trump has in common with his predecessor Barack Obama was their shared dismay at the perception that the U.S. bears the brunt of NATO spending. Obama called out "free riders" in NATO that benefit from U.S. military support without contributing enough to defense themselves.

Europe's commitment to NATO

Ironically, questions over members' commitment to NATO could come from closer to home (it's headquartered in Brussels) with increasing talk in Europe about strengthening the EU's cooperation and coordination on defense.

French President Emmanuel Macron has caused a stir ahead of this week's NATO meeting after he said in early November that "what we are currently experiencing is the brain death of Nato."

Speaking to The Economist magazine, Macron cited the U.S. failure to consult NATO before pulling out of Syria as a reason for his comment, and also questioned NATO's validity. He argued that Europe should focus on its own defense alliance, although German Chancellor Angela Merkel believes the continent is too weak "for now" to defend itself.

Speaking to lawmakers last week, Merkel said that "we rely on this trans-Atlantic alliance, and that is why it is right for us to work for this alliance and take on more responsibility."

IISS's Raine told CNBC that the short-term priority for the alliance "must be to get NATO's public messaging back on track."

"That includes the presentation of an alliance that is militarily more capable than ever before, and that is adapting to the evolving security threats its members face, not at the expense of its traditional focus but in addition to it," she said.

The NATO secretary general will be hoping for summit headlines that focus attention away from the state of NATO's brain, Raine said, "and towards admiration for NATO's muscles, by highlighting the range and depth of NATO's operational commitments and capabilities."

The 'R'-word

NATO was set up in 1949 as a military alliance between 10 European countries, the U.S. and Canada "to promote cooperation among its members and to guard their freedom," the alliance says, "within the context of countering the threat posed at the time by the Soviet Union."

Seventy years on, and after several decades of relatively good relations and cooperation, NATO's relations with Russia are tense.

This comes after Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea and its role in a pro-Russian uprising in eastern Ukraine. NATO says that the channels of communication remain open with Russia but that "Russia's destabilizing actions and policies go beyond Ukraine" citing its "provocative military activities near NATO's borders stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea."

It has also cited its "irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric," its support for the regime in Syria as well as the U.K. nerve agent attack which it said was "a clear breach of international norms." NATO has said it supported the U.S.' decision to withdraw from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in response to "Russia's material breach."

On Russia's part, perhaps the most controversial NATO decision has been the decision to deploy NATO missile defense systems in Romania and Poland (although completion of this Aegis Ashore — a land-based missile defense system — site is delayed to 2020). Along with the deployment of thousands of NATO troops to the Baltic nations and Poland in the last few years, these developments appear to have served only to exacerbate tensions with Russia.

Russia has widely criticized the deployment of missile defense shields in its former backyard. The prospect of Ukraine and Georgia, both of which used to be part of the former USSR, joining NATO (and even potentially the European Union) is also an unsavory prospect for Moscow.

In September 2019, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that "NATO approaching our borders is a threat to Russia." That view was echoed by Russian President Vladimir Putin this month, when he told Russia's Security Council that he was "seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarize outer space."

The future?

Questions over NATO's future are bound to dominate this year's coverage of the meeting. Asked if NATO remained relevant, IISS' Raine replied with an emphatic "yes."

"NATO's responses to persistent and aggressive destabilizing actions by Russia have ensured the relevance of the alliance as the cornerstone of European security. The irony is that whilst NATO has become military more relevant, political debate within the alliance has become more fractious," she said.

"It is political deficiencies, not military deficiencies that are now threatening the future relevance of the alliance."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiYmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNuYmMuY29tLzIwMTkvMTIvMDIvbmF0by1zdW1taXQtYWxsaWFuY2UtaGFzLW1vcmUtcHJlc3NpbmctaXNzdWVzLXRoYW4tcnVzc2lhLW5vdy5odG1s0gFmaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY25iYy5jb20vYW1wLzIwMTkvMTIvMDIvbmF0by1zdW1taXQtYWxsaWFuY2UtaGFzLW1vcmUtcHJlc3NpbmctaXNzdWVzLXRoYW4tcnVzc2lhLW5vdy5odG1s?oc=5

2019-12-02 07:39:00Z
52780452828964

China suspends review of request for U.S. military ships, aircraft visiting Hong Kong - Reuters

BEIJING (Reuters) - China said on Monday U.S. military ships and aircraft won’t be allowed to visit Hong Kong, and also announced sanctions against several U.S. non-government organizations for encouraging protesters to “engage in extremist, violent and criminal acts.”

Anti-government protesters raise their hands as they attend the "Lest We Forget" rally in Hong Kong, China December 1, 2019. REUTERS/Thomas Peter

The measures were announced by China’s Foreign Ministry in response to U.S. legislation passed last week supporting anti-government protesters. It said it had suspended taking requests for U.S. military visits indefinitely, and warned of further action to come.

“We urge the U.S. to correct the mistakes and stop interfering in our internal affairs. China will take further steps if necessary to uphold Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity and China’s sovereignty,” said ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a daily news briefing in Beijing.

China last week promised it would issue “firm counter measures” after U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law the “Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act,” which supports anti-government protesters in Hong Kong and threatens China with potential sanctions.

There are fears that the row over Hong Kong could impact efforts by Beijing and Washington to reach preliminary deal that could de-escalate a prolonged trade war between the two countries.

The U.S.-headquartered NGOs targeted by Beijing include the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, Human Rights Watch, and Freedom House.

“They shoulder some responsibility for the chaos in Hong Kong and they should be sanctioned and pay the price,” said Hua.

In more normal times, several U.S. naval ships visit Hong Kong annually, a rest-and-recreation tradition that dates back to the pre-1997 colonial era which Beijing allowed to continue after the handover from British to Chinese rule.

Visits have at times been refused amid broader tensions and two U.S. ships were denied access in August.

The USS Blue Ridge, the command ship of the Japanese-based Seventh Fleet, stopped in Hong Kong in April – the last ship to visit before mass protests broke out in June.

Foreign NGOs are already heavily restricted in China, and have previously received sharp rebukes for reporting on rights issues in the country including the mass detention of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang.

Reporting by Cate Cadell and Beijing Monitoring Desk; Editing by Tom Hogue & Simon Cameron-Moore

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMioAFodHRwczovL3d3dy5yZXV0ZXJzLmNvbS9hcnRpY2xlL3VzLWhvbmdrb25nLXByb3Rlc3RzLWNoaW5hLXVzYS9jaGluYS1zdXNwZW5kcy1yZXZpZXctb2YtcmVxdWVzdC1mb3ItdS1zLW1pbGl0YXJ5LXNoaXBzLWFpcmNyYWZ0LXZpc2l0aW5nLWhvbmcta29uZy1pZFVTS0JOMVk2MElR0gE0aHR0cHM6Ly9tb2JpbGUucmV1dGVycy5jb20vYXJ0aWNsZS9hbXAvaWRVU0tCTjFZNjBJUQ?oc=5

2019-12-02 07:20:00Z
52780452574535

Dozens more jihadis are set to be freed from jail. London terror attack shows the risks - CNN International

It has also revived perennial questions for law enforcement and intelligence agencies -- who is at risk of re-offending? And can they be effectively monitored? How effective are deradicalization and rehabilitation programs?

Usman Khan had been out of jail for a year after serving part of a sentence for his involvement in a terrorism plot in 2010. On Friday, the 28-year old stabbed to death two people on London Bridge before being shot dead by police. Although he was wearing an ankle bracelet, he'd been able to travel to London from his home in the English Midlands.

Khan's lawyer, Vajahat Sharif, said there were no signs that he would re-offend. He had been a teenager when charged in 2010. He told CNN he was "completely shocked" that his former client carried out Friday's attack as he had seen signs over the years that he wanted to veer away from radicalism.

A letter obtained by CNN shows Khan writing from prison in 2012 asking to join a deradicalization course. Sharif confirms his team received the letter and had advised his client to write it in the hope of meeting with a specialist intervention consultancy that focuses on rehabilitating individuals convicted of terrorist offenses.

"I didn't feel he understood with necessary depth the ideology he was following, and I didn't want it to become his life," Sharif said.

In the letter, Khan writes: "As you are fully aware of my offence, which is a terrorism offence. It relates more to what I intended and the mindset at that time, also the views I carried. Which I realize now after spending some time to think were not according to Islam and its teachings."

Sharif said limits on access to prisoners such as Khan prevented his client from being able to meet with a consultant from the rehab program.

Khan pled guilty at his trial and recanted his views -- saying he realized his previous views "were not according to Islam and its teachings."

Sharif said that soon before Khan's release on license last year, "He wasn't talking about politics. He wasn't talking about jihad. He was talking in a positive way."

It's still unclear what changed, or whether Khan's desire for rehabilitation was a ruse all along.

The Kashmir question

Khan and eight other defendants received long sentences early in 2012, after pleading guilty to preparing acts of terrorism and other terrorist-related offenses. Khan was part of an ambitious conspiracy that involved cells in Stoke-on-Trent, Cardiff and London who would meet in public parks in Wales. Khan talked about building pipe-bombs according to a formula in the online al Qaeda publication, Inspire.

Some of the men were planning to attack the London Stock Exchange. But Khan's main preoccupation then was Kashmir, his ancestral homeland. He and the Stoke cell planned to train overseas for jihad at the beginning of 2011, and were focused on "fundraising for their plans to establish and recruit for a terrorist military training facility under the cover of a madrassa [religious school] on land owned by Usman Khan's family."

The judge in the case said Khan and one other man "were keen to perform acts of terrorism in Kashmir."

What's unclear at present is whether recent events in the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir may have radicalized Khan again. The central government in Delhi launched a security crackdown in the mainly Muslim region this year -- largely cutting it off from the outside world -- and later stripped much of it of its autonomous status. While there is no direct evidence that Khan was motivated by recent events in Kashmir, events there may have influenced his recent outlook.

That goes to the heart of the dilemma for authorities: what event or incident might radicalize a former prisoner? And whom do they monitor? Who should be eligible for early release? Full-time surveillance on an individual can occupy about 20 law enforcement agents.

A political football

The attack by Usman Khan has become a major theme in the UK election campaign, with both main parties blaming the other for lax sentencing.

Khan had received a "custodial sentence" of 16 years, but that meant a minimum time in jail of just eight years. In sentencing the Stoke cell, the judge had warned that they "would remain, even after a lengthy term of imprisonment, of such a significant risk that the public could not be adequately protected by their being managed on license in the community."

But Khan was out on license, without any Parole Board hearing. The UK Justice Ministry has now launched an "urgent review" of the parole conditions for every convicted terrorist released in the UK. The review will apply to about 70 individuals.

Five of Khan's accomplices in the 2010 plot have been released. One of them, Mohibur Rahman, was released early after he applied to a deradicalization program -- but was jailed again in August 2017 for plotting a "mass casualty attack" on a police or military target with two other men. Rahman received a minimum 20-year sentence.

In many cases across Europe, time in overcrowded and underfunded jails has also been a radicalizer. At least one of the Charlie Hebdo attackers in France was radicalized in prison. A UK government report in 2016 warned that Islamist extremism was "a growing problem within prisons, and a central, comprehensive and coordinated strategy is required to monitor and counter it."

Among the most prominent of French jihadis who were released from prison was Fabien Clain. He subsequently went to Syria to join ISIS and read out the claim of responsibility for the 2015 Paris attacks that killed 130 people.

Now, efforts to repatriate foreign fighters and their families to Europe from detention camps in Syria are being revived, partly at the Trump administration's instigation. Trump claimed in October: "I actually said to them [the Europeans], if you don't take them, I'm going to drop them right on your border.

In recent years, the jail population across Europe has swollen to include dozens of foreign fighters who had gone to join ISIS in Iraq and Syria. While ISIS' caliphate has been reduced to rubble and many of its fighters are dead or unaccounted for, some 1,600 have returned home to Europe according to the European Union -- and many have received prison sentences.

In September, the research group Globsec examined in detail the cases of more than 300 European jihadists. Some had been killed, but 199 had been convicted of various terror offenses in 2015. Of that number 45 had already been released. A further 113 would be released from prison by the end of 2023.

Globsec says "jihadi ranks include hardened veterans who have already gone through more than one terrorism conviction and are intent on repeating their feats." Its analysis found that 20% of those convicted had gone on to offend again.

Earlier this year a returning fighter in jail in France was one of three men charged with plotting to kill prison officials. A leading authority on jihadism in France, Marc Hecker of the French Institute for International Relations, says that between mid-2018 and the end of 2019, 50 individuals convicted of terrorism offenses plus an additional 450 deemed radical will have been released from French prisons.

Many of those allowed back into society will turn their back on terrorism, but others will have been hardened by their experiences, and become part of new networks. Globsec concludes that "such individuals are likely to return to their pre-arrest activities and once again attempt to engage in terrorism."

Khan's lawyer, Vajahat Sharif, is still trying to work out what went wrong with his client.

He told CNN: "What is so astonishing is that he recognized that the police were going to be in his life and he was fine about that. It was just them doing their job. He was very different from [what he was like as a] 19 year-old. He had matured a lot."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiV2h0dHBzOi8vZWRpdGlvbi5jbm4uY29tLzIwMTkvMTIvMDEvdWsvbG9uZG9uLWJyaWRnZS1hdHRhY2stYW5hbHlzaXMtZ2JyLWludGwvaW5kZXguaHRtbNIBV2h0dHBzOi8vYW1wLmNubi5jb20vY25uLzIwMTkvMTIvMDEvdWsvbG9uZG9uLWJyaWRnZS1hdHRhY2stYW5hbHlzaXMtZ2JyLWludGwvaW5kZXguaHRtbA?oc=5

2019-12-01 15:22:01Z
52780452317702

Boris Johnson says 74 convicted terrorists released from prison will have license conditions reviewed - Fox News

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson says 74 convicted terrorists released early from prison in the United Kingdom will have their license conditions reviewed.

The UK Ministry of Justice confirmed the figure, launching a review after convicted terrorist Usman Khan killed two people in a knife attack at the London Bridge on Friday, following an early release from prison, according to the BBC. The 28-year-old died in the attack. He had previously been jailed after attempting to bomb the London Stock Exchange in 2012.

Johnson says that eliminating early release would have prevented the deadly stabbing.

LONDON BRIDGE ATTACK SUSPECT SHOT AND KILLED BY BRITISH POLICE AFTER STABBING: REPORT

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson says 74 convicted terrorists released early from prison in the United Kingdom will have their license conditions reviewed.<br data-cke-eol="1"> (AP)

"I opposed [automatic release] both in 2003 and 2008, and now that I am prime minister I'm going to take steps to make sure that people are not released early when they commit... serious sexual, violent or terrorist offenses," he told the BBC. "I absolutely deplore that fact that this man was out on the streets... and we are going to take action against it."

This undated photo provided by West Midlands Police shows Usman Khan. UK counterterrorism police are searching for clues into an attack that left two people dead and three injured near London Bridge. Police said Saturday, Nov. 30, 2019, Khan, who was imprisoned six years for terrorism offenses before his release last year stabbed several people in London on Friday, Nov. 29, before being tackled by members of the public and shot dead by officers on the London Bridge. (West Midlands Police via AP)

Johnson said that there are "probably about 74 people" who have been released early after committing serious crimes and said that steps need to be taken after the London Bridge stabbing "to ensure there is no threat to the public."

One of those stabbed by Khan in Friday's attack was named as 25-year-old University of Cambridge graduate, Jack Merritt, who graduated with a bachelor's degree in law in 2016.

His father, David Merritt, said on Twitter that he wishes his son's death won't be used to detain people unnecessarily, adding that Jack was "a beautiful spirit who always took the side of the underdog."

A photograph of the first victim to be named, Jack Merritt, is pictured among floral tributes left close to London Bridge in the City of London, on December 1, 2019, following the November 29 deadly terror incident. - Britain's Boris Johnson said on December 1 the security services were stepping up monitoring of convicted terrorists released early from prison, as the London Bridge attack became embroiled in the election campaign. (Photo by Ben STANSALL / AFP) (Photo by BEN STANSALL/AFP via Getty Images)

"Jack spoke so highly of all the people he worked with & he loved his job," he added.

NARWHAL TUSK-WIELDING CHEF HELPED SUBDUE LONDON BRIDGE ATTACKER; VICTIM IDENTIFIED

Dr. Vin Diwakar, medical director for NHS London, told the BBC that a staff member who works at the university was also injured in the attack and two other victims remain at the hospital in stable condition. A third person was released early.

Khan was sentenced to indeterminate detention for "public protection" with a minimum of eight years after the failed bomb attack in 2012, which the outlet says would have kept him in prison beyond the minimum term.

In 2013, the Court of Appeal replaced the sentence with a 16-year fixed term, with Khan serving half in prison. He was eventually released in December 2018 while being subject to an "extensive list of license conditions," Met Police Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu told the BBC.

Those conditions will reportedly be reviewed.

Liberal Democrats deputy leader Ed Davey said on Sunday that he was "alarmed" at Johnson's reaction to the London Bridge attack.

"In the middle of an election, we shouldn't be making political capital out of a tragedy, and he's doing that, and he's doing that in a way which is misleading people about what the law actually says," Davey said, according to the outlet.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for an investigation into Khan and said there should be additional funding for mental health services. He also warned against "knee-jerk legislation," adding that the United Kingdom could "pay a price later."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"There has to be an examination of how our prison services work and crucially what happens when they are released from prison," he said.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiZGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZveG5ld3MuY29tL3dvcmxkL2JvcmlzLWpvaG5zb24tNzQtY29udmljdGVkLXRlcnJvcmlzdHMtcmVsZWFzZWQtcHJpc29uLWxpY2Vuc2UtcmV2aWV3ZWTSAWhodHRwczovL3d3dy5mb3huZXdzLmNvbS93b3JsZC9ib3Jpcy1qb2huc29uLTc0LWNvbnZpY3RlZC10ZXJyb3Jpc3RzLXJlbGVhc2VkLXByaXNvbi1saWNlbnNlLXJldmlld2VkLmFtcA?oc=5

2019-12-01 16:01:38Z
52780454286372

London Bridge attack threatens to recast U.K.'s 'Brexit election' with focus on terror - NBC News

LONDON — A deadly terror attack struck at the heart of the British capital just weeks before a crucial national election, refocusing the campaign on security issues as voters were set to head to the polls.

That was 2017.

But two years later London Bridge was again the scene of tragedy, bravery and the center of national debate in the U.K. this weekend.

Nov. 30, 201901:57

Friday afternoon's stabbing attack left two people dead at the hands of a man released from prison last year after a previous terrorism conviction. Political leaders vowed to briefly pause campaigning, but by late Saturday it was clear security would — at least temporarily — become the focus of the election.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson vowed to take a tougher stance on crime and security if re-elected. Writing in an op-ed in the Mail on Sunday newspaper, Johnson called for the reversal of a law that allows serious offenders to be released from prison early and sought to blame the opposition Labour Party for the policy.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn criticized the government, which has been in power since 2010.

"There's got to be a very full investigation," he said, though he declined to join Johnson's sweeping call for longer prison terms.

The snap Dec. 12 vote was called in an effort to end the country's yearslong political deadlock over its divorce from the European Union.

The issue has dominated much of the campaign to this point, with Johnson's ruling Conservative Party appealing to voters to hand them a majority in Parliament they claim would allow them to "get Brexit done."

Labour has sought to focus on health care, claiming Johnson's hardline Brexit plans and vow to strike a free trade deal with the United States will do damage to the cherished National Health Service (NHS).

Let our news meet your inbox. The news and stories that matters, delivered weekday mornings.

"Inevitably, an attack like this is going to dictate the agenda for at least a few days," Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, told NBC News.

"I’m not sure it will permanently knock Brexit, or indeed the NHS, off the headlines, but it's clear both Boris Johnson and to some extent Jeremy Corbyn are determined to not only comment on but potentially capitalize on what’s happened."

Corbyn, a veteran left-wing campaigner, has trailed in the polls throughout but looked to be narrowing the gap in the past week. PAUL ELLIS / AFP - Getty Images

Johnson's law-and-order stance was more likely to appeal to the British public, Bale said, which is "notoriously hardline and much more inclined to a lock them up and throw away the key philosophy."

A public opinion poll by market research firm YouGov for the Sunday Times newspaper found the public split in their confidence in Johnson on security issues, but overwhelmingly lacking confidence in Corbyn's leadership on the subject.

The Conservatives have long sought to paint their opponents as soft on crime, a tactic Johnson returned to in the wake of the London Bridge attack.

Johnson and his allies have attempted to blame a Labour Party policy from 2008 for the early release of Usman Khan, the 28-year-old named as the suspect police shot dead on London Bridge.

Khan was originally sentenced to 16 years in prison in 2012 for his part in an al-Qaeda-inspired plot to blow up the London Stock Exchange and other major sites including the U.S. Embassy.

But Bale said such a reduction of a complex case was "deeply cynical," while some U.K. legal experts pushed back against the claims.

The Prime Minister repeatedly defended his efforts Sunday to point the finger. "Although it is very early I think it is legitimate," he told the BBC's flagship Sunday talk show in a combative interview with host Andrew Marr.

Related

One of the families affected by Friday's attack appeared to have made an appeal not to exploit the incident to impose tougher laws.

One of the victims was identified Sunday as Jack Merritt, 25, who was part of Cambridge University's Learning Together program aimed at educating people in prison alongside university students.

Ahead of the attack Khan had been attending a Learning Together event at a historic building adjacent to the bridge, police said.

In a now-deleted tweet Jack's father, David Merritt, was reported to have said Saturday his son "would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or for detaining people unnecessarily."

That wish seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.

Yet it remained unclear whether the strategy would pay off when voters head to the polls in two weeks.

The 2017 attack on London Bridge and Borough Market also came in the buildup to an election.

On that occasion Corbyn was able to gain public favor by criticizing policing cuts that had been imposed as part of the Conservative government's austerity program.

"I think the public did have some sympathy with the idea that you can’t protect people on the cheap and the point he made about police funding back then arguably applies now," Bale said.

While the laws involved in the case may require review, Bale warned that politicians should tread carefully as they quickly apportioned blame.

"Voters aren’t fools and if they begin to think that politicians are trying to make the most out of a tragic incident then it may backfire," he said, "because voters at the moment are very, very cynical about politicians on all sides."

Linda Givetash

Linda Givetash is a reporter based in London. She previously worked for The Canadian Press in Vancouver and Nation Media in Uganda. 

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiZ2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lm5iY25ld3MuY29tL25ld3Mvd29ybGQvbG9uZG9uLWJyaWRnZS1hdHRhY2stdGhyZWF0ZW5zLXJlY2FzdC11LWstcy1icmV4aXQtZWxlY3Rpb24tbjEwOTM3MTHSASxodHRwczovL3d3dy5uYmNuZXdzLmNvbS9uZXdzL2FtcC9uY25hMTA5MzcxMQ?oc=5

2019-12-01 14:40:00Z
52780452317702