Free speech isn’t easy – Durham Herald Sun

Posted on by

The Orange County Schools Board of Education, faced with public demands Monday that it ban the Confederate flag from school grounds, essentially punted.

That wasnt a bad idea.

The flag controversy -- far from unique to Orange County or its schools -- raises sensitive issues of racism, hate speech -- and free speech.

We understand the flag is an abrasive symbol that to many evokes generations of white supremacy and enslavement and mistreatment of African-Americans.

On the other hand, when official bodies decree what symbolic speech is permitted and what is proscribed, the slope is slippery indeed.

The board said it would establish an equity committee to advise it on the flag and the issues it raises.

We understand that improvement is an ongoing process and we are committed to collaborating with our community to support the health and well-being of all students, board chairman Stephen Halkiotis said.

That collaboration might not be easy. Finding the right path through such sensitive issues seldom is.

Perhaps the committee and the board can view this if not as a teachable moment at least an opportunity to ponder the difficulties of honoring free speech in a time of societal discord.

We tend to look to the American Civil Liberties Union in this sphere. The organization has a staunch belief in the broadest construction of permitted speech, and argues persuasively that the most important speech to defend can be that we find most disagreeable.

A couple years ago, the ACLU raised some eyebrows when it praised the South Carolina legislatures decision to remove the Confederate flag from the State Capitol while at the same time criticizing Texas for not allowing a Confederate flag as an option in the states specialty license program.

Those license messages are designed and paid by individuals, and are not messages of the state, Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney with the ACLUs Speech, Privacy and Technology Project wrote in the Washington Post in July 2015.

If the schools were hoisting the Confederate flag, that would be government speech which government could (and should in this case) renounce.

But private speech? The government cant stop you from taping up your bumper sticker or rabble-rousing from your soapbox, whether your message is a peace sign, battle hymn, swastika or heart, Rowland wrote. Your individual liberty to speak, unconstrained by government, is at the heart of both the First Amendment and our American tradition of protest and freedom.

We hope the school boards committee has a full and spirited discussion, but that those words are on their minds.

Here is the original post:

Free speech isn't easy - Durham Herald Sun

The right and wrong of free speech – Economic Times (blog)

Posted on by

The events at Ramjas College in Delhi University, the ensuing protests and the vicious trolling of a girl student Gurmehar Kaur, which saw Union minister Kiren Rijiju criticise Kaur rather than take on the trolls, all misconceive and truncate the right to freedom of speech.

True, the Constitution places reasonable restrictions on this freedom, on grounds of sovereignty and national integrity, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Free speech is not meant only for those who agree with a dominant view; it matters most when it comes to unpopular, minority views. If those who disagree with such views unleash violence, and create a threat to public order, what should the state do? Some Delhi policemen present when Ramjas College students were allegedly attacked by ABVP activists, who sensed a threat to Indian nationalism from a speaker, chose to take off their name tags and beat up Ramjas students.

Minus such blatant partisanship, if the state merely used the public order proviso to gag the minority opinion, that would still fall short of defending the right to freedom of expression. That would only be an invitation for people to stage violence to muzzle opinion they disagree with. The countrys courts are the final arbiters of when a restriction on free speech is warranted, but in a technical sense. It is the lived practice of democracy with citizens actively defending free speech, even of the kind they disagree with that will give substance to this and other fundamental rights.

In this light, it is welcome that many students, teachers and others have come out against violent suppression of free speech and lent support to Gurmehar Kaur, including senior minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.

This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Economic Times.

Excerpt from:

The right and wrong of free speech - Economic Times (blog)

House OKs free-speech on campus bill – Salt Lake Tribune

Posted on by

(Francisco Kjolseth | Tribune file photo) Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, pushed through the House a bill recognizing and bolstering free-speech rights on the campuses of Utah's public colleges and universities.

ARTICLE PHOTO GALLERY (1)

HB54 A bill promoting freedom of campus speech won unanimous approval Tuesday in the Utah House and now heads to the Senate.

Rep. Kim Coleman, R-West Jordan, has said that HB54 was created to address limits on speech on certain campuses

Coleman said the bill affirms that college campuses are traditional public forums for speech and that "the institution may maintain a reasonable time, place or manner of restrictions on expression, but everything else is free."

Outdoor areas of public colleges and universities are reserved for free speech and an institution may not prohibit it so long as the speakers' conduct is lawful = under the bill. It also recognizes a cause of legal action if free-speech rights are violated.

See the article here:

House OKs free-speech on campus bill - Salt Lake Tribune

Parliamentary inquiry into free speech resolves nothing, so 18C should be left alone – The Conversation AU

Posted on by

Federal parliament should leave section 18C untouched.

The inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has reported to parliament. Unsurprisingly, it has focused most of its recommendations on the procedures and processes associated with the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission in accepting and hearing complaints.

The impetus for the inquiry was the now-infamous QUT case, in which an employee of Queensland University Technology asked non-Indigenous students to leave a computer lab designated for the use of Indigenous students. Those students then allegedly posted comments on Facebook, in relation to which the QUT employee lodged a complaint of unlawful vilification against the students. In November 2016, the Federal Court dismissed all the complaints against the students.

The QUT case was the most recent impetus for the launch of this inquiry, although it followed earlier rumblings in the Australian Law Reform Commissions report on traditional rights and freedoms, the Andrew Bolt case and the unsuccessful 2014 attempt to narrow section 18C.

All eyes were on what the report would recommend regarding the words used in section 18C. This is because critics of the section are quick to point out that it says that unlawful conduct occurs when it is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone on the ground of their race. The bar is too low, they say. Merely offending someone or insulting them ought not to be grounds for a complaint of unlawful conduct under civil law.

Supporters of the section are equally quick to point out that the courts have interpreted section 18C to mean that the conduct captured by the law has to amount to a profound and serious harm, not to be likened to mere slights. Therefore, merely having ones feelings hurt or feeling offended does not reach the threshold required to lodge a complaint. Independent MP David Leyonhelm found this out when he tried, unsuccessfully, to complain about journalist Mark Kenny describing him as speaking on ABC television with angry-white-male certitude and being a rank apologist for the resentment industry promoted by angry-white-male shock jocks.

Of the 22 recommendations made in the report, only one deals specifically with the words in section 18C. This recommendation is inconclusive. It notes merely that at least one member of the committee had supported each of the five mooted proposals.

This leaves no-one the wiser about what the federal parliament will do about the text of section 18C. It also puts the responsibility squarely in the hands of the parliament to make a decision on what has lately become a highly controversial piece of Australian federal law. The recommendation contains five options regarding the words in section 18C:

1. No change. This option is strongly supported by the Australian Greens, who wrote a dissenting report. Labor also wrote extended additional comments, which noted the high levels of racism experienced in Australian society, the important role that 18C has played during the more than 20 years of its operation, and that the section only captures serious conduct. They agreed with witnesses to the inquiry who suggested that amending the section would send a dangerous message to the community. Overall, it seems highly likely the ALP supported this option.

2. Codifying the courts interpretation of section 18C as referring to profound and serious effects. This change would have no material impact on how section 18C operates as a legal prohibition of unlawful conduct.

3. Removing the words offend, insult and humiliate and replacing them with harass. This change would create uncertainty in the interpretation of section 18C, until a case was able to make its way to the courts and a definitive interpretation of the term harass was able to be made.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines harass as to trouble or vex by repeated attacks, or alternatively as to trouble, worry or distress. These terms could imply, but do not necessarily imply, profound and serious conduct.

It is possible a court would apply a similar interpretation to the term harass as has already been applied to the existing text. If that were the case, nothing much would change.

4. Including a truth defence in section 18D. Section 18C operates in conjunction with section 18D, which allows for exemptions to conduct that would otherwise be considered to contravene section 18C. Exemptions currently exist for conduct done reasonably and in good faith, including artistic expression, public debate and fair and accurate reporting.

The inclusion of a truth defence in 18D would radically alter its scope. I imagine many people whose conduct might be caught by 18C would relish the opportunity to argue the truth of their views (for example, Holocaust deniers or those who would want to argue the inferiority of particular races). Deliberately providing a platform for such discourse through the text of 18C would make a mockery of 18Cs purpose and operation. It would significantly weaken the protection it offers to vulnerable communities, and provide a platform for hate speakers.

5. Changing the test of whether unlawful conduct has occurred from the experience of a member of the targeted group to a reasonable member of the Australian community. This suggestion was included in the ill-fated attempt to reform 18C in 2014.

Implementing this recommendation would mean a complete reframing of the way in which racial vilification is conceptualised in federal law. Currently, 18C is the only racial vilification law in Australia in which the test of whether conduct is unlawful depends on the response of the group targeted by the vilification. This is a great strength.

Changing to a test of whether a reasonable person in the community would regard an expression as vilifying or not would discount the lived experience of targets of vilification, and thereby reduce the likelihood of a complaint being upheld. People who are not the targets of vilification are simply not able to understand its effects in the ways that those who are targeted experience it.

On the whole, this report is unhelpful. It has failed to resolve the key issues at stake in terms of the text of section 18C. Given the inability of the committee to reach agreement on suggestions for textual reform, the parliament should leave 18C unchanged.

Read more from the original source:

Parliamentary inquiry into free speech resolves nothing, so 18C should be left alone - The Conversation AU

Reforms to improve freedom of speech – NEWS.com.au

Posted on by

KEY POINTS FROM FREEDOM OF SPEECH REPORT:

* LEADERSHIP

Community leaders and politicians should identify and condemn racially hateful and discriminatory speech.

* SECTION 18C OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT

No repeal, but some MPs still say the words "offend", "insult" and "humiliate" should be replaced with "harass".

* HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Time limits on all aspects of dealing with complaints; commission must be fairer to all parties impacted by the complaint; commission can terminate a complaint if it has no reasonable prospect of success; cost orders to prevent frivolous claims; new guidelines for the HRC president in relation to complaint handing; appointment of a part-time judge to help deal with initial complaints.

* LABOR VIEW

Commission will need extra funding; current laws strike the right balance between free speech and freedom from racial abuse.

* GREENS VIEW

Keep Section 18C as is; enable the commission to terminate complaints that lack merit.

Excerpt from:

Reforms to improve freedom of speech - NEWS.com.au

Talks of disintegration in garb of freedom of speech not tolerable: Ravi Shankar Prasad – Economic Times

Posted on by

NEW DELHI: Amid the rising political brouhaha over the violent students clashes in Ramjas College, BJP leader and Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Tuesday warned that talks of the country's disintegration in the garb of freedom of speech will not be tolerated.

"We fully support freedom of expression but in the name of that, can a movement to disintegrate the country be allowed? Those who are now arguing about freedom of speech, I want to ask them do they raise their voice when terrorists kill people, when our security forces are killed? Have they ever spoken about them?" asked Prasad.

Referring to slain Army officer's daughter Gurmehar Kaur who launched a social media campaign against the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), Prasad questioned those who were indulging in politics in her name.

"Her father was killed while fighting the terrorists. Those who are playing politics in her name now, I want to ask them where were they when the terrorists killed her father," said Prasad.

Kaur launched her social media campaign in the aftermath of the February 22 violence at Delhi University's Ramjas College where ABVP activists allegedly attacked students, teachers and journalists in the campus.

ABVP activists on February 21 had forced Ramjas College to cancel a seminar to be addressed by JNU student Umar Khalid who was charged with sedition last year.

"In the garb of freedom of speech, talks of disintegrating cannot not be tolerated. The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech but it doesn't allow attempts to break the country," added the Law Minister.

See more here:

Talks of disintegration in garb of freedom of speech not tolerable: Ravi Shankar Prasad - Economic Times

What Is Wrong With Yoga? – Catholic Church

Posted on by

By Bro. Peter Dimond

Since the practice of Yoga is rampant in Novus Ordo religious orders and also secular institutions such as the YMCA, its important to quickly discuss whats wrong with it. Isnt it just stretching? No. I will quote a Novus Ordo priest, Fr. James Manjackal, who is very knowledgeable about the subject:

The word Yoga means union, the goal of Yoga is to unite ones transitory (temporary) self, JIVA with the infinite BRAHMAN, the Hindu concept of God. This God is not a personal God, but it is an impersonal spiritual substance which is one with nature and cosmos. Brahman is an impersonal divine substance that pervades, envelopes and underlies everything. Yoga has its roots in the Hindu Upanishads, which is as old as 1.000 BC, and it tells about Yoga thus, unite the light within you with the light of Brahman. The absolute is within one self says the Chandogya Upanishads, TAT TUAM ASI or THOU ART THAT. The Divine dwells within each one of us through His microcosmic representative, the individual self called Jiva. In the Bhagavad Gita, the lord Krishna describes the Jiva as my own eternal portion, and the joy of Yoga comes to yogi who is one with Brahman. In A.D. 150, the yogi Patanjali explained the eight ways that leads the Yoga practices from ignorance to enlightenment the eight ways are like a staircase They are self-control (yama), religious observance (niyama), postures (asana), breathing exercises (pranayama), sense control (pratyahara), concentration (dharana), deep contemplation (dhyana), enlightenment (samadhi). It is interesting to note, here, that postures and breathing- exercises, often considered to be the whole of Yoga in the West, are steps 3 and 4 towards union with Brahman! Yoga is not only an elaborate system of physical exercises, it is a spiritual discipline, purporting to lead the soul to samadhi, total union with the divine being. Samadhi is the state in which the natural and the divine become one, man and God become one without any difference (Brad Scott: Exercise or religious practice? Yoga: What the teacher never taught you in that Hatha Yoga class in the Watchman Expositor Vol. 18, No. 2, 2001). (http://www.jmanjackal.net/eng/engyoga.htm)

The idea that the divine is to be sought for and found within oneself is, of course, occultic. The idea that the divine permeates all of creation the idea upon which the practice of Yoga is based and toward which it is geared is Pantheism and reprobated by Vatican I.

Pope Pius IX, First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chap. 1, On God the Creator of all things: The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth who, although He is one, singular, altogether simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, must be proclaimed distinct in reality and essence from the world (Denzinger 1782.)

God is distinct in reality and essence from His creation. Pantheism teaches that God and the universe are one.

Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge (# 7), March 14, 1937: Whoever identifies, by pantheistic confusion, God and the universe, by either lowering God to the dimensions of the world, or raising the world to the dimensions of God, is not a believer in God. (The Papal Encyclicals, Vol. 3 (1903-1939), p. 526.)

As an aside, John Paul II himself taught this condemned pantheistic notion in his encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem (50.3), May 18, 1986. He stated:

The Word became flesh. The Incarnation of God the Son signifies the taking up into unity not only of human nature, but in this human nature, in a sense, of everything that is flesh: the whole of humanity, the entire visible and material world. The Incarnation, then, also has a cosmic significance, a cosmic dimension. (The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 316.)

Notice that as he was expounding (as usual) on his heretical belief that Christ is united to each and every man, in this case John Paul II decided to take it one step farther: not only has Christ united Himself with every man, he says, but with the entire visible and material world. According to Antipope John Paul II, the grass, trees, rivers, lakes, oceans, etc. were all united with Christ by virtue of the Incarnation. He develops the thought in the next sentence of this encyclical.

John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem (50.3), May 18, 1986: The first-born of all creation, becoming incarnate in the individual humanity of Christ, unites himself in some way with the entire reality of man, which is also flesh and in this reality with all flesh, with the whole of creation. (The Encyclicals of John Paul II, p. 316.)

Antipope John Paul II was a Pantheist. In Pantheism, the world and God are a singlething.

A Catholic Dictionary, by Attwater: Pantheism A false philosophy which consists in confounding God with the world. According to some the world is absorbed by God (Indian pantheists, Spinoza); others teach that God is absorbed by the world of which he is the force and the life But all [Pantheists] seek to establish an identity of substance between God and the world. (A Catholic Dictionary, by Donald Attwater, p. 366.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia: Pantheism, the view according to which God and the world are one. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11, New York: Robert Appleton Co., 1911, p. 447.)

Since, as we saw above, the practice of Yoga is based on the idea of union with the divine within oneself and within all of creation, the practice of Yoga is therefore an expression of belief in the condemned pantheistic heresy that God and His creation are a single thing. Truly practicing Yoga, therefore, is practicing a false religion and expressing belief in a false god. The conservative Novus Ordo priest I quoted above, who is outraged by the rampant practice of Yoga in Christian and Catholic circles, summed the situation up quite well:

The practice of Yoga is pagan at best, and occult at worst. This is the religion of antichrist and for the first time in history it is being widely practiced throughout the Western world and America. It is ridiculous that even yogi masters wearing a Cross or a Christian symbol deceive people saying that Yoga has nothing to do with Hinduism and say that it is only accepting the other cultures. Some have masked Yoga with Christian gestures and call it Christian Yoga. Here it is not a question of accepting the culture of other people, it is a question of accepting another religion... (http://www.jmanjackal.net/eng/engyoga.htm)

Yet, the Monastery of the Holy Spirit offers a special Fundamentals of Yoga and Christianity Retreat. (http://www.trappist.net/newweb/enews_03_18_05.html)

The Carmelite Spiritual Center in Darien, Illinois offered a Living Your Light Yoga Retreat. (http://www.carmelitespiritualcenter.org/living-light.asp?a=retreats)

The Catholic Ecclesia Center in Girard, Pennsylvania which is approved by the Diocese in which it resides, as I personally confirmed includes on its staff a Yoga instructor!

Michael Plasha is a credentialed Yoga Therapist and a Yoga Alliance registered teacher He has also trained in Zen and Vipassana meditation. Since 1980 Michael has taught over 3,000 classes in yoga and meditation Yoga is a non-dogmatic approach to union with the Divine presence within everyone. (http://www.ecclesiacenter.org/staff.htm)

Notice that the Ecclesia Center admits that Yoga is an approach to the Divine presence within everyone, thus proving that its rooted in and directed toward Pantheism and the occult. The website also states that Ecclesia Center provides spiritual renewal to persons of all faiths. (http://www.ecclesiacenter.org/index.htm) This is total apostasy, fully approved by the Diocese.

Other examples could be given, but the evil practice of Yoga is so rampant at Catholic monasteries that Budget Travel Online actually advertises for it!

More than 2,000 monasteries, abbeys, and spiritual retreat centers are scattered throughout the United States and Canada. About 80 percent are linked to a religious order. But most take a more ecumenical, interfaith approach to accommodate this increased interest. In the old days if you were a Catholic retreat center, you advertised yourself that way. Now most of them want everybody to come, Stone says. Many places offer yoga, Buddhist thought, prayers of all sorts. (http://www.budgettravelonline.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2005/06/04/AR2005060400391.html)

All of this is more proof of the Great Apostasy. As even the Novus Ordo priest said: this is the religion of antichrist

Read more from the original source:

What Is Wrong With Yoga? - Catholic Church

Top 5 Transhumanist Technologies With Major Implications …

Posted on by

Transhumanism is one of those technologies that boggles most peoples minds. Do not be mistaken in thinking this has anything to do with being transgender, as transhumanists seek to improve their human capacities beyond what is assumed to be possible. They do so by using top-of-the-line technologies, rather than gadgets or other electronics. Most of these technologies go by unnoticed, which is why we have compiled a brief list below.

Some people may have heard of this technology before. Cryonics is a high-fidelity preservation of the human body after death. The primary reason why anyone would enter a cryogenic sleep is to anticipate a potential future revival. This technology has been widely available for some time, albeit it is rather on the expensive side. Through cryonics, it is feasible to stop cells from decaying. Moreover, the process requires no electricity to do so.

Tampering with the human bodys genes sounds rather risky, but significant advancements have been made in recent years. Gene therapy effectively replaces bad genes with good ones, which allows us to manipulate our genetic code. Scientists have discovered a way to remove genes coding for specific metabolic proteins, ensuring the host remains slim and fit at all times.

Anti-aging therapy is heavily influenced by gene therapy as well and it is believed scientists will eventually reach the longevity escape velocity soon. As a result, humans may become subject to indefinite lifespans. Whether or not that is a positive development, remains to be seen, though.

Introducing cyber enhancements to the human body remains a very risky business to this very day. Implants and other electronics can address a lot of problems our bodies are faced with. Cybernetics are designed in such a way they will be invisible to the casual observer, as they reside beneath the hosts skin. Most current bio modifications are all external, as we have covered in a previous article. Cybernetic systems will improve our everyday experience and even boost the economy as humans will be able to do more work in less time.

While a lot of people are concerned over what the future will bring in terms of robotics, self-replicating robots may be the least of our concerns right now. Replacing manual labor with robots doing the task for us seems like a no-brainer, albeit it will cause some job losses. Self-replicating robots, on the other hand, would be quite beneficial. For example, they can turn uninhabitable areas into living spaces, clean up waste generated by us humans, or even pave the way for human colonization of space.

As creepy as this concept may sound at first, mind uploading or nonbiological intelligence can be quite valuable to our society. Implementing cognitive processing on anything that is not human would be a massive breakthrough. The general public is not too keen of this concept, even though our minds are by far our greatest assets. Synthetic brains are not impossible to achieve by any means, although a lot of research is required before this can become a reality.

If you liked this article, follow us on Twitter @themerklenews and make sure to subscribe to our newsletter to receive the latest bitcoin, cryptocurrency, and technology news.

See more here: Top 5 Transhumanist Technologies With Major Implications The Merkle

Here is the original post:

Top 5 Transhumanist Technologies With Major Implications ...

The Transhumanist’s Quest for Godhood: ‘Remember, Thou Art Mortal’ – CNSNews.com

Posted on by

CNSNews.com
The Transhumanist's Quest for Godhood: 'Remember, Thou Art Mortal'
CNSNews.com
History tells us that when victorious generals in ancient Rome returned home, they would hold triumphal processions through the streets. Singers, dancers, and adoring citizens would shower the general with effusive praises. But to guard him against ...

Here is the original post:

The Transhumanist's Quest for Godhood: 'Remember, Thou Art Mortal' - CNSNews.com

Gene Editing Could Make You Smarter – Futurism – Futurism

Posted on by

In Brief

The gene editing technology CRISPR/Cas9has paved a new path forward for us from eliminating diseaseandfixing pests,to restoring lost abilities the process is expected to graduateus into a new age of medicine. But it begs the question, can we make ourselves better? Can we improve our intelligence inthe advent of gene engineering?

The answer might just be a resounding yes.

The Cognitive Genomics Projectis focused on understanding the origin of intelligence within our own genome. Its lead by BGI, a non-profit research group based in Shenzhen, China, that was founded in 1999. The organization is currently conducting a gene-trait association study of g, a general factor of intelligence. General intelligence is defined by three prominent categories: stability, heritability, and predictive powers. In short, the study is collecting genetic data from over 20,000 individuals who have an IQ above 150, and looking for patterns in their genes.

While this might seem relatively straightforward, its actually a complex and difficult task. Thats becausegeneral intelligence does not follow mendelian, single-gene genetics. Researchers cannot simply look for specific mutations in specific genes, as they do for diseaseslike Huntingtons Disease or Cystic Fibrosis. Rather, intelligence is more similar to traits like eye color and hair color that involve multiple genes in inheritance patterns that we are just beginning to understand.

It remains to be seen how effective gene editing can be at influencing traits like personality and intelligence in peoplewhose brains have already been formed. One way we could avoid the gene editing process entirely is by genetically designing intelligence into our children from conception. We could utilize in vitro fertilization and carefully process the genetic information of each embryo produced for genetic preferences.

If the Cognitive Genomics Project provides significant data supporting thecorrelation between particular parts of the genome and intelligence, then parents can look for these genetics sequences in potential embryos and select the embryos with the desired traits. This method would increase the probability of intelligent children without having to edit particular genome sequences.

While the ethics of human genetic engineering continue to be debated, we may be closer to a more intelligent humanity than ever before.

Read more:

Gene Editing Could Make You Smarter - Futurism - Futurism

Space Travel News: Pictures From NASA’s Hubble Telescope Show … – International Business Times

Posted on by

NASAs Hubble telescope captured a picture of a massive galaxy known as UGC 12591 400 million light years away from Earth, Sci-News reported Monday. The distant galaxy cluster is enormous, spanning hundreds of millions of light years.

UGC 12591, also known as LEDA 71391, is situated in the westernmost part of the Pisces-Perseus Supercluster. Its the fastest rotating galaxy known to man, according to a Harvard study, spinning at up to 1.2 million mph.The galaxy is also immense, weighing in at four times the mass of the Milky Way and several hundred billion times the mass of our sun.

Hubbles photo is aiding astronomers in their quest to determine exactly how the galaxy came to be and whether it grew over time or collided with another galaxy.

Hubble has been regularly capturing images from deep space since it was launched in 1990. More than 1.3 million observations have been made from the telescope, which orbits above the atmosphere at 17,000 mph for an untarnished view of the universe. The telescope helped scientists discern the age of the universe, an estimated 14 billion years old, through its observations.

In September 2016, NASA released photos from Hubble of Jupiters moon Europa, kick-starting a search for possible life on the lunar planet. The images revealed the possibility of a subsurface ocean on Europa that could be capable of hosting life.

In another exciting discovery, NASA released photos in January of two combination spiral galaxies located over one billion light years away. The Hubble images captured the two galaxies, known as IRAS 14348-1447, merging together and destroying one other, emitting incredibly bright infrared energy.

Earlier in February, the Hubble telescope captured an image of a spiral galaxy named NGC 7640, a far smaller galaxy situated just 19 million light years from Earth inside of the Andromeda constellation.

Visit link:

Space Travel News: Pictures From NASA's Hubble Telescope Show ... - International Business Times

How Much of a Military Threat Does Russia Pose to NATO and the US? – Scout

Posted on by

How would NATO hold up in an all-out war against Russia? Rand Wargame found that Russian forces could quickly overwhelm NATO forces currently protecting Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia

How much of a threat do Russia's emerging 5th-generation stealth fighter, nuclear arsenal, high-tech air defenses, anti-satellite weapons, conventional army and submarines pose to NATO and the U.S.?

Current tensions between Russia and NATO are leading many to carefully assess this question and examine the current state of weaponry and technological sophistication of the Russian military -- with a mind to better understanding the extent of the kinds of threats they may pose.

Naturally, Russias military maneuvers and annexation of the Crimean peninsula have many Pentagon analysts likely wondering about and assessing the pace of Russia's current military modernization and the relative condition of the former Cold War military giants forces, platforms and weaponry.

Russia has clearly postured itself in response to NATO as though it can counter-balance or deter the alliance, however some examinations of Russias current military reveals questions about its current ability to pose a real challenge to NATO in a prolonged, all-out military engagement.

Nevertheless, Russia continues to make military advances and many Pentagon experts and analysts have expressed concern about NATO's force posture in Eastern Europe regarding whether it is significant enough to deter Russia from a possible invasion of Eastern Europe.

Also, Russias economic pressures have not slowed the countries commitment to rapid military modernization and the increase of defense budgets, despite the fact that the countrys military is a fraction of what it was during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s.

While the former Cold War giants territories and outer most borders are sizeably less than they were in the 1980s, Russias conventional land, air and sea forces are trying to expand quickly, transition into the higher-tech information age and steadily pursue next generation platforms.

Russias conventional and nuclear arsenal is a small piece of what it was during the Cold War, yet the country is pursuing a new class of air-independent submarines, a T-50 stealth fighter jet, next-generation missiles and high-tech gear for individual ground soldiers.

A think-tank known asThe National Interesthas recently published a number of reports about the technological progress now being made by Russian military developers. The various write-ups include reporting on new Russian anti-satellite weapons, T-14 Armata tanks, air defenses and early plans for a hypersonic, 6th-generation fighter jet, among other things. Russia is unambiguously emphasizing military modernization and making substantial progress, the reports from The National Interest and other outlets indicate.

For instance, Russia hasapparently conducted a successful test launch of its Nudoldirect ascent anti-satellite missile, according to The National Interest.

"This is the second test of the new weapon, which is capable of destroying satellites in space. The weapon was apparently launched from the Plesetsk test launch facility north of Moscow," the report from The National Interest writes.

In addition, The National Interests' Dave Majumdar reported that Russian Airborne Forces plan six armored companies equipped with newly modifiedT-72B3M tanks. Over the next two years, those six companies will be expanded to battalion strength, the report states.

Russia is also reportedly developing a so-called "Terminator 3" tank support fighting vehicle.

.During the Cold War, the Russian defense budget amounted to nearly half of the countrys overall expenditures.

Now, the countries military spending draws upon a smaller percentage of its national expenditure. However, despite these huge percentage differences compared to the 1980s, the Russian defense budget is climbing again. From 2006 to 2009, the Russian defense budget jumped from $25 billion up to $50 billion according to Business Insider and the 2013 defense budget is listed elsewhere at $90 billion.

Overall, the Russian conventional military during the Cold War in terms of sheer size was likely five times what it is today.

The Russian military had roughly 766,000 active front line personnel in 2013 and as many as 2.4 million reserve forces, according toglobalfirepower.com. During the Cold War, the Russian Army had as many as three to four million members.

By the same 2013 assessment, the Russian military is listed as having more than 3,000 aircraft and 973 helicopters. On the ground, Globalfirepower.com says Russia has 15-thousand tanks, 27,000 armored fighting vehicles and nearly 6,000 self-propelled guns for artillery. While the Russian military may not have a conventional force the sheer size of its Cold War force, they have made efforts to both modernized and maintain portions of their mechanized weaponry and platforms. The Russian T-72 tank, for example, has been upgraded numerous times since its initial construction in the 1970s.

On the overall Naval front, Globalfirepower.com assesses the Russian Navy as having 352 ships, including one aircraft carrier, 13 destroyers and 63 submarines. The Black Sea is a strategically significant area for Russia in terms of economic and geopolitical considerations as it helps ensure access to the Mediterranean.

Analysts have also said that the Russian military made huge amounts of conventional and nuclear weapons in the 80s, ranging from rockets and cruise missiles to very effective air defenses.

In fact, the Russian built S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft air defenses, if maintained and modernized, are said to be particularly effective, experts have said.

Citing Russian news reports, the National Interest reported that the Russians are now testing a new, S-500 air defense systems able to reportedly reach targets up to 125 miles.

In the air, the Russian have maintained their 1980s built Su-27 fighter jets, which have been postured throughout strategic areas by the Russian military.

Often compared to the U.S. Air Forces F-15 Eagle fighter, the Su-27 is a maneuverable twin engine fighter built in the 1980s and primarily configured for air superiority missions.

Rand Wargame

While many experts maintain that NATOs size, fire-power, air supremacy and technology would ultimately prevail in a substantial engagement with Russia, that does not necessarily negate findings from a Rand study released last year explaining that NATO would be put in a terrible predicament should Russia invade the Baltic states.

NATO force structure in Eastern Europe in recent years would be unable to withstand a Russian invasion into neighboring Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, the Rand study has concluded.

After conducting an exhaustive series of wargames wherein red (Russian) and blue (NATO) forces engaged in a wide range of war scenarios over the Baltic states, a Rand Corporation study called Reinforcing Deterrence on NATOs Eastern Flank determined that a successful NATO defense of the region would require a much larger air-ground force than what is currently deployed.

In particular, the study calls for a NATO strategy similar to the Cold War eras AirLand Battle doctrine from the 1980s. During this time, the U.S. Army stationed at least several hundred thousand troops in Europe as a strategy to deter a potential Russian invasion. Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that there are currenty 30,000 U.S. Army soldiers in Europe.

The Rand study maintains that, without a deterrent the size of at least seven brigades, fires and air support protecting Eastern Europe, that Russia cold overrun the Baltic states as quickly as in 60 hours.

As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members. Across multiple games using a wide range of expert participants in and out of uniform playing both sides, the longest it has taken Russian forces to reach the outskirts of the Estonian and/or Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga, respectively, is 60 hours. Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, the study writes.

AirLand Battle was a strategic warfighting concept followed by U.S. and allied forces during the Cold War which, among other things, relied upon precise coordination between a large maneuvering mechanized ground force and attack aircraft overhead. As part of the approach, air attacks would seek to weaken enemy assets supporting front line enemy troops by bombing supply elements in the rear. As part of the air-ground integration, large conventional ground forces could then more easily advance through defended enemy front line areas.

A rapid assault on the Baltic region would leave NATO with few attractive options, including a massive risky counterattack, threatening a nuclear weapons option or simply allowing the Russian to annex the countries.

One of the limited options cited in the study could include taking huge amounts of time to mobilize and deploy a massive counterattack force which would likely result in a drawn-out, deadly battle. Another possibility would be to threaten a nuclear option, a scenario which seems unlikely if not completely unrealistic in light of the U.S. strategy to decrease nuclear arsenals and discourage the prospect of using nuclear weapons, the study finds.

A third and final option, the report mentions, would simply be to concede the Baltic states and immerse the alliance into a much more intense Cold War posture. Such an option would naturally not be welcomed by many of the residents of these states and would, without question, leave the NATO alliance weakened if not partially fractured.

The study spells out exactly what its wargames determined would be necessary as a credible, effective deterrent.

Gaming indicates that a force of about seven brigades, including three heavy armored brigadesadequately supported by airpower, land-based fires, and other enablers on the ground and ready to fight at the onset of hostilitiescould suffice to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states, the study writes.

During the various scenarios explored for the wargame, its participants concluded that NATO resistance would be overrun quickly in the absence of a larger mechanized defensive force posture.

The absence of short-range air defenses in the U.S. units, and the minimal defenses in the other NATO units, meant that many of these attacks encountered resistance only from NATO combat air patrols, which were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. The result was heavy losses to several Blue (NATO) battalions and the disruption of the counterattack, the study states.

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia could be likely Russian targets because all three countries are in close proximity to Russia and spent many years as part of the former Soviet Union, the study maintains.

Also like Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia are home to sizable ethnic Russian populations that have been at best unevenly integrated into the two countries post-independence political and social mainstreams and that give Russia a self-justification for meddling in Estonian and Latvian affairs, the study explains.

The Rand study maintained that, while expensive, adding brigades would be a worthy effort for NATO.

Buying three brand-new ABCTs and adding them to the U.S. Army would not be inexpensivethe up-front costs for all the equipment for the brigades and associated artillery, air defense, and other enabling units runs on the order of $13 billion. However, much of that gearespecially the expensive Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehiclesalready exists, the study says.

The actual NATO troop presence in Eastern Europe is something that is still under consideration and subject to change in this new administration. For quite some time, NATO and the US have been considering adding more troops to the Eastern flank as a way to further deter Russia.

The Pentagons European Reassurance Initiative, introduced last year, calls for additional funds, forces and force rotations through Europe in coming years, it is unclear what the force posture will ultimately be.

At the same time, the Pentagons $3.4 Billion ERI request does call for an increased force presence in Europe as well as fires, pre-positioned stocks and headquarters support for NATO forces.

Officials with U.S. Army Europe tell Scout Warrior that more solidarity exercises with NATO allies in Europe are also on the horizon, and that more manpower could also be on the way.

For example, NATO conducted Swift Response 16 from May 27 through June 26 of last year in Poland and Germany; it included more than 5,000 soldiers and airmen from the United States, Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain.

Read this article:

How Much of a Military Threat Does Russia Pose to NATO and the US? - Scout

Trump demands other NATO members pay their fair share – POLITICO.eu

Posted on by

U.S. President Donald Trump addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress on February 28 | Jim Lo Scalzo - Pool/Getty Images

Our partners must meet their financial obligations, Trump said.

By Nahal Toosi

3/1/17, 4:53 AM CET

Updated 3/1/17, 8:20 AM CET

Just in case any NATO members hadnt gotten the message, U.S. President Donald Trump said it once again Tuesday night: You need to pay up.

The Republican president, in his speech before a joint session of Congress, held firm to demands that other countries in the decades-old military alliance must spend more on defense and not simply count on the United States to cover for them.

We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism. But our partners must meet their financial obligations, Trump said. And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.

He then ad-libbed: In fact, I can tell you the money is pouring in, very much.

He didnt offer details, but some NATO states have said since before Trump was elected that they were increasing their defense spending.

Trumps complaint about other NATO members not spending enough on defense is hardly unique to him. Even his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama, urged other NATO members to stop relying so heavily on the United States to financially carry the military alliance.

Only a handful of NATOs 28 members meet the target of spending at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense.

But despite his vows of support for NATO on Tuesday, Trump has often spoken of the alliance in highly dismissive terms, calling it obsolete and suggesting that the United States may not stick to its treaty obligations and come to the aid of fellow NATO members not paying their fair share.

That has deeply alarmed NATO members in Europe, who are increasingly wary of Russian aggression. Trumps insistence that the U.S. needs to improve its relationship with Moscow hasnt helped.

In what appeared to be a veiled reference to Russia, Trump on Tuesday said, America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align.

We want peace, wherever peace can be found, he added later, noting. America is friends today with former enemies.

Read more:

Trump demands other NATO members pay their fair share - POLITICO.eu

Model NATO lands Superior Delegation award – UTA The Shorthorn

Posted on by

Armed with facts, charisma and just a pinch of acting, UTAs Model NATO traveled to Washington, D.C., for the International Model NATO Conference from Feb. 15 to Sunday.

Members of the UTA organization served on different committees to cover several topics NATO currently faces. NATO is a partnership between the U.S. and nearly 30 other countries to form a military alliance.

German junior Matthew Estrada co-delegated a committee on emerging security, which concerns indirect threats like cyber warfare, he said.

Alisha Adams, critical language international studies in German senior, served as a Norway delegate on a committee dealing with tactical nuclear planning and won Superior Delegation. She described her role as the voice of reason.

Norway would say, Youre being aggressive, this is not safe. This can threaten the environment, she said. I was kind of like the hippie, I guess. The environmentally-friendly delegate.

Ricardo Ortiz, Model NATOs executive officer, said he enjoyed being the Russian delegate on the partnerships committee.

The amount of studying the group did before leaving varied between members.

Estrada, who won Independent Leadership with his fellow club member, said it was important to research their respective committees as much as possible.

Overall, I dont see this as necessarily an easy job, he said.

Among studying Norways positions on issues that NATO faces, studying other members stances were equally as important, he said.

But history senior Morse disagreed.

You see two sides of things, he said. You see the intense study and work needed for these kinds of things the knowledge, the information and the ability to sell ice to Eskimos.

Most members agreed that learning to play a role was a huge part of this conference.

In Adams committee, she could see how persuasion could be an overshadowing force.

If you were a well-spoken person and very charming, you could have other delegates ignore them and more in more of the direction you want to go, Adams said.

History senior Ortiz earned much attention after following a suggestion from Micah Morse, fellow Model NATO member, and the organizations faculty adviser, Lonny Harrison.

At one point during his committees discussions, Ortiz noted a real-life incident during NATO discussions in 1966. Taking off his shoe and slamming it on the table, Ortiz harkened back to Nikita Khrushchevs tenure as a Russian delegate.

For me, its all about being able to improvise, which is supported what facts you know, he said. I was Russia, so I was basically playing devils advocate for this conference. Im not going to lie, it was pretty fun.

This commitment to his role as the Russian delegate earned him a Superior Delegation award at the conference.

On top of individual awards and the participation award given to everyone, UTAs Model NATO won an overall Superior Delegation award, only beat by three other delegations.

Despite the awards, Estrada said the best thing about the conference is all the people hes met.

It helps build a repertoire of people you can look to for advice or for information or help, he said.

@oakford_jamil

news-editor.shorthorn@uta.edu

Read the rest here:

Model NATO lands Superior Delegation award - UTA The Shorthorn

NATO’s Strange Addition of Montenegro Consortiumnews – Consortium News

Posted on by

Exclusive: Official Washingtons New Cold Warriors are painting NATOs admission of tiny Montenegro in the stark black-and-white colors of a heroic stand against Russian aggression but that misses the real reasons why its a bad idea, writes Jonathan Marshall.

By Jonathan Marshall

Any day now, Arizona Senator John McCain promises, the U.S. Senate will vote to approve the incorporation of Montenegro as the 29th member state in the NATO alliance. Though few Americans likely know where to find the tiny Balkan nation on a map, Montenegro has become another dubious focal point of the Wests new confrontation with Russia.

At first glance, the case for extending NATOs umbrella over a country with fewer than 2,000 troops isnt obvious. Its seven helicopters are unlikely to make America safer. The Obama administration, which championed this latest in a long line of recent additions to the alliance, actually offered as a rationale the fact that Montenegro had donated some mortar rounds to the anti-ISIS coalition in Iraq and $1.2 million to NATOs operations in Afghanistan over three years.

That sum is less than a third of what U.S. taxpayers spend in Afghanistan per hour. One critic quipped, if the Wests survival depends on Montenegros inclusion in NATO, we should all be heading for the bunkers.

Maybe thats why hawks are citing the mere fact of Russias predictable opposition as a prime reason to support Montenegros accession. Backing Montenegros membership is not only the right thing for the Senate to do, it would send a clear signal that no third party has a veto over NATO enlargement decisions, argues the Heritage Foundation.

And two advocates at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, writing in Foreign Affairs, declared recently that Montenegro will be the key test of whether President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson kowtow to their friend Russian President Vladimir Putin and acquiesce . . . in another Yalta or stand up for core U.S. goals.

Raising the specter of Putin and Yalta diverts attention from troubling questions about Montenegros political suitability as a partner and whether it has anything of military value to offer.

NATO ostensibly conditions its acceptance of new members on strict criteria, which include demonstrating a commitment to the rule of law and human rights; establishing democratic control of armed forces; and promoting stability and well-being through economic liberty, social justice and environmental responsibility.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Carpenter assured the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last September that Montenegro supported NATOs values of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. He must have missed the report from Freedom House, which gave the country a rating of only partly free for both political rights and civil liberties.

The organization cited restrictions on the freedom of peaceful assembly and years of harassment and discrimination against LGBT people. It also noted ongoing concerns . . . about the independence of the judiciary and the public broadcaster, as well as numerous failures to effectively prosecute past attacks against media workers. The country suffers from a lack of trust in the electoral process among voters, it added.

Carpenter must also have missed the State Departments human rights report, which accused Montenegro of numerous violations, including impunity for war crimes, mistreatment by law enforcement officers of persons in their custody, overcrowded and dilapidated prisons and pretrial detention facilities, violations of the right to peaceful assembly, and selective prosecution of political and societal opponents.

A Bastion of Corruption

As for the rule of law, consider that Montenegros ruler for nearly three decades, Milo Djukanovi?, was given the 2015 Organized Crime and Corruption Person of the Year Award by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), an organization of several hundred investigative journalists who report on corruption in Europe and Central Asia (and are partly financed by USAID).

Citing his success in creating an oppressive political atmosphere and an economy choked by corruption and money laundering, the OCCRP said Djukanovi? has built one of the most dedicated kleptocracies and organized crime havens in the world.

The organization pointed to his alleged role in cigarette smuggling with notorious Italian crime syndicates; his familys takeover of a former state bank, which became a money laundry for organized crime; his controversial sale of major stretches of the countrys coastline to shady foreign oligarchs; and his offer of citizenship to a notorious regional drug kingpin.

Djukanovi? knows the money is greener to the west of Montenegro than to the east. Thats why hes an ardent advocate of joining NATO. (Fewer than 40 percent of Montenegrins in a recent poll agreed in part because alliance warplanes bombed the country during NATOs campaign against Serbia in 1999.) President Obama congratulated Djukanovi? on his stand during an official reception in September.

Following national elections in October, Djukanovi? finally stepped down as prime minister, but he remains head of the ruling party. Taking his place as the countrys current prime minister was his hand-picked deputy, Dusko Markovic.

Markovic, a former state security chief, is considered one of Djukanovi?s closest confidantes, reported OCCRP. He was publicly accused by a former head of the countrys anti-organized crime police last year of involvement incigarette smuggling, but was never charged. In 2014, Markovic was also charged by the head of a government investigative commission with obstructing a probe into the murder of a prominent newspaper editor and critic of Djukanovi?.

Western media have large ignored such troubling facts. Instead, what little coverage there is of Montenegro focuses on the governments sensational claim that Russians plotted to assassinate Djukanovi? at the time of the October election.

Markovic recently told Time magazine that his security services at the last minute uncovered a criminal organization formed by two Russian military intelligence agents, who planned on election day to provoke incidents . . . and also possibly an armed conflict as a pretext for taking power.

The prosecutor in charge of the case says Russian state authorities backed the plot to prevent Montenegro from joining NATO. He vows to indict two alleged Russian plotters and 22 others, including a group of Serbian nationalists, by April 15. Russias foreign minister called the allegations baseless, but refuses to extradite any suspects. An independent expert, citing numerous anomalies in the official story, argues the plot was a rogue operation by Serbian and Russian nationalist freelancers.

Russia, which has long considered the Balkans to be in its sphere of influence, has a history of intruding in Montenegros affairs. But absent persuasive supporting evidence for the governments case, outsiders should bear in mind the cautionary observation by Freedom House that [Montenegros] intelligence service has faced sustained criticism from international observers for a perceived lack of professionalism.

Still, it should come as no surprise that anti-Russia hawks havent let ambiguous evidence deter them from demanding the expansion of NATO.

A Wall Street Journal editorial said the alleged coup plot gives a good taste of Russias ambitions and methods in Eastern and Central Europe and concluded with a call for accepting Montenegros bid to join NATO: Western security is best served by supporting democratic governments of any size facing pressure from regional bullies. The alternative is to deliver another country into Moscows grip, and whet its appetite to take another.

Time magazine commented even more breathlessly that The aborted coup was a reminder that a new battle for Europe has begun. From the Baltics to the Balkans and the Black Sea to Great Britain, Vladimir Putin is seeking to rebuild Russias empire more than 25 years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Trumps past criticism of NATO, the magazine warned, has raised flags that the U.S. might accept Russias territorial grab.

Such inflammatory comments are stoking the political fires burning around Trump, including investigations of his campaign contacts with Russians, assertions of Moscows interference with the election, and questions about business connections or personal indiscretions that make him vulnerable to Putin. Trumps stand on Montenegro still to be determined will signal whether he remains a critic of NATO or is caving to the New Cold Warriors.

Jonathan Marshall is author of many recent articles on arms issues, including Obamas Unkept Promise on Nuclear War, How World War III Could Start,NATOs Provocative Anti-Russian Moves,Escalations in a New Cold War,and Ticking Closer to Midnight.

The rest is here:

NATO's Strange Addition of Montenegro Consortiumnews - Consortium News

NATO to US: ‘Yessir, how high shall we jump, Mr. Trump, sir?’ – Herald and News

Posted on by

Candidate Donald Trump set off a furious controversy when he said NATO countries should pay their fair share of mutual defense costs and, later, that the treaty organization was obsolete because not enough of its efforts were directed against radical Islamic terrorism.

On Monday, Vice President Mike Pence took the Trump message to NATO headquarters in Brussels. And after all the controversy and complaining, NATOs response could be boiled down to a single sentence: Yes sir, Mr. Trump.

News reports from Pences news conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg focused on Pences effort to reassure nervous NATO officials that the U.S. will stand behind its treaty commitments. It is my privilege here at the NATO headquarters to express the strong support of President Trump and the United States of America for NATO and our transatlantic alliance, Pence said. I can say with confidence, America will do our part.

Story continues below video

But at least as newsworthy was what happened next. Pence dropped the hammer of Trumps demands, and NATO quickly went along.

Europes defense requires Europes commitment as much as ours, Pence said. He reminded the group that in 2014 all 28 members of NATO promised to try to spend two percent of their GDP on defense by 2024. Only four countries, in addition to the U.S., are now meeting that standard. As a candidate, Trump repeatedly called for NATO to pay more, Pence noted.

And now Trump is president. So let me say again what I said this last weekend in Munich, Pence said The president of the United States and the American people expect our allies to keep their word and to do more in our common defense, and the president expects real progress by the end of 2017. ... It is time for actions, not words.

Just in case anyone missed the message, Pence encouraged the NATO countries that dont spend two percent on defense to accelerate their plans to get there. And if you dont have a plan, Pence said, get one.

To which NATO quickly acceded. I fully support what has been underlined by President Trump and by Vice President Pence today, the importance of burden sharing, Stoltenberg said. I expect all allies to make good on the promise that we made in 2014 to increase defense spending and to make sure to have a fairer burden of sharing.

On the issue of terrorism, Stoltenberg said yes again. First, he noted that NATO is helping train security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and is contributing surveillance planes to the fight against the Islamic State. Then he added what Pence wanted to hear: But we agree that the alliance can, and should do more, in the fight against terrorism.

Its hard to overstate the near-hysteria that met Trumps fair share and obsolete comments. But the fact is, burden sharing is an old idea, and a non-controversial one. Modernizing NATOs approach in the age of the Islamic State is also eminently reasonable. And now NATO, facing the reality of a Trump presidency, has little choice but to go along.

The bottom line is that Donald Trump moved the NATO debate. After much fretting, and complaining, and denouncing, NATO did the simplest thing: It went along.

Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.

See the original post here:

NATO to US: 'Yessir, how high shall we jump, Mr. Trump, sir?' - Herald and News

Michael Samukai Implicates NSA in ‘Gun Ownership’ – Liberian Daily Observer

Posted on by

Michael Samukai, the son of Defense Minister Brownie Samukai, who is being tried for allegedly shooting Zardee Andrews in the back of his neck, told Criminal Court A yesterday that the gun used during the incident was issued to him by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The agency is expected to appear before the court on Thursday, March 2.

Defendant Samukai, who is on the witness stand, was said to have shot Andrews on September 13, 2016, during a fist fight about the victims extra marital relations with his wife. The incident occurred at the Tropicana Beach on the Robertfiled Highway.

Although, defendant Samukai testified that it was the NSA that issued him the gun, police investigation established that he acquired the weapon illegally. He, however, said the permit for the weapon is still in the possession of the NSA.

Samukai claimed that he is an employee of the NSA with a rank of deputy chief of security assigned at the National Port Authority (NPA). Despite the shooting incident, he still maintains his post.

His explanation came immediately after the prosecution asked him to produce every legitimate document in his possession that authorizes him to carry the arm.

It was due to that information that his lawyer asked the court for the agency to appear before it and to prove whether or not the defendants was authorized by the NSA to carry a firearm.

Further to his testimony, defendant Samukai alleged that he was issued the gun, after he had complained to his bosses that he had been attacked on many occasions, by unidentified persons while performing his duty at the port.

After I was physically attacked on many occasions as deputy chief of security at the port, it was when I thought that I needed protection and it was how the NSA gave me the weapon for protection, the defendant alleged.

He added that the NSA did not give him the permit for the weapon.

Explaining about the shooting incident, Samukai denied any knowledge as to who actually carried out the act.

The gun was in my jacket and while we were fighting, he spotted it and we together took it out of my clothes (jacket) and it went off, so, I do not know how he was shot, Samukai alleged.

He claimed that after the incident he immediately reported the weapon to the headquarters of the LNP, where the Police Inspector General, Gregory Coleman, advised him to leave it there because nothing was going to happen to me.

He is charged with multiple crimes, including aggravated assault, criminal attempt to commit murder and illegal possession of firearm.

Follow this link:

Michael Samukai Implicates NSA in 'Gun Ownership' - Liberian Daily Observer

Posted in NSA

Congress can reform the NSA to protect our rights without putting us in danger – Washington Examiner

Posted on by

Say you're a senior national security adviser on a campaign and part of your job is to speak to foreign ambassadors. You know the United States government often has such foreign officials under electronic surveillance, but you also know that, as an American citizen, you're still protected by the Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately for you, the FBI can collect your communications emails, texts, chats, or calls with those foreign officials and look at them without a warrant.

How is that possible? Nearly 10 years ago, Congress gave the NSA broad authority to intercept Internet communications, as long as it was for foreign intelligence purposes. That authority, known as Section 702, has played a valuable role in disrupting terrorist plots and gathering foreign intelligence, but it has always had two serious flaws.

First, its drafters did not carefully consider what protections should exist for U.S. persons whose communications would be reviewed by law enforcement. Second, the drafters did not foresee what having a statute that allowed for broad collection against foreigners would mean for U.S. companies operating overseas. But now, Congress has an opportunity to fix these two flaws before this statute expires at the end of the year.

According to government officials, Section 702 has played a crucial role in disrupting terrorist plots. A group commissioned by President Barack Obama to review the statute concluded that information obtained through it had "contributed in some degree" to the success of 53 terrorism investigations. In particular, intelligence agencies have highlighted that Section 702 helped disrupt a plot to bomb the New York subway system and a terrorism financing scheme operating out of Missouri. Successes like these have led intelligence officials to describe it as their "most significant tool" for the "detection, identification, and disruption of terrorist threats."

But while Section 702 is a powerful tool in the fight against terror, it raises serious concerns in the law enforcement context.

Section 702 allows the NSA to collect the communications of foreign persons from U.S. tech companies like Microsoft and Google and from U.S. telecom firms' networks. This collection, though targeted at potentially dangerous foreigners, inevitably sweeps up the communications of innocent Americans and non-Americans. These communications can be accessed by the FBI when investigating not only national security matters, but any crime. Because Section 702 information is not obtained pursuant to a warrant, this allows the FBI to evade the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and unconstitutionally invade the privacy of Americans.

American tech companies are also affected by Section 702. After particulars of 702 surveillance were leaked to the press, foreign governments, anxious about being surveilled by the NSA, denied contracts to U.S. tech firms like Microsoft and Verizon. More destructive was a 2015 ruling by the European Court of Justice which cited concerns about Section 702 when striking down a framework known as the Safe Harbor, which protected American tech companies from certain European data regulations.

Without Safe Harbor, U.S. companies could have been required to locate Europeans' data on servers in the European Union, with this seriously increasing companies' costs and proving especially prohibitive for start-ups. Although EU and U.S. authorities quickly implemented a replacement for Safe Harbor known as Privacy Shield, that agreement is already being challenged in EU courts. If it is struck down, the commerce-killing requirements that were predicted in the aftermath of Safe Harbor could become a reality, bringing transatlantic data flows and trade to a screeching halt.

Congress should reauthorize Section 702, but it should also amend it to protect Americans' rights and empower U.S. companies to push back against government surveillance that hurts their bottom lines. As lawmakers do this, they can ensure that Americans are safe, their rights are respected, and our companies continue to compete in the global marketplace.

Also from the Washington Examiner

The quieter and more removed from my life the commander in chief is, the better.

03/01/17 12:26 AM

Mieke Eoyang (@MiekeEoyang) is the vice president for the National Security Program at Third Way and previously served as a subcommittee staff director on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Gary Ashcroft (@ashcroftgm) is a national security fellow at Third Way.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Here is the original post:

Congress can reform the NSA to protect our rights without putting us in danger - Washington Examiner

Posted in NSA

Lethal weapons of war – VICE News

Posted on by

A federal appeals court upheld Marylands ban on popular AR-15-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines last week, delivering a significant win to gun-control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to military-style weapons.

Marylands ban, enacted in 2013 soon after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, was allowed to stand in a 10-4 decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, that ruled the Second Amendment does not protect what the judges called exceptionally lethal weapons of war.

While the ruling is the fifth to uphold a state ban on assault weapons, according to The Trace, the Virginia federal appeals court is the highest yet to affirm a standard for classifying assault weapons, one gun advocates say will significantly narrow the scope of the Second Amendment. And one of the lawyers who brought the case now has set his sights on the Supreme Court.

It is absurd to hold that the most popular rifle in America is not a protected arm under the Second Amendment, Jennifer Baker, director of public affairs for the National Rifle Association, said in a statement. The Second Amendment protects arms that are in common use at the time for lawful purposes like self-defense.

Like all constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is limited. For instance, civilians cant buy automatic weapons, like machine guns. But now seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning military-style automatic weapons like the AR-15, a version of which was used in the Sandy Hook massacre which took the lives of 26 people, mostly children and the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Florida, where 49 were killed and 53 wounded.

In the past, circuit courts have relied on how common a weapon is when determining if its covered by the Second Amendment, according to Hannah Shearer, an attorney with the Law Center for Gun Violence Prevention. But with the 4th Circuit ruling, the judges gave new credence to a second standard: if a weapon could cause military-level destruction.

The AR-15, the Maryland ruling majority opinion reads, is simply the semiautomatic version of the M16 rifle used by our military and around the world. That deadly ancestry, according to the opinion, means that the Supreme Court excludes AR-15-type rifles and firearms like it from the Second Amendment.

Those AR-15-style rifles are some of the most popular firearms among U.S. consumers today.

[Under the ruling,] the Second Amendment doesnt even apply to the most common and popular semiautomatic rifles being sold today, said Jay Porter, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Maryland case. Its absurd.

But some gun control advocates say the common use standard alone is insufficient.

It would suggest that if the gun industry floods the market with an extremely dangerous destructive weapon, if they can flood the market quick enough before legislatures begin banning this product, then theres nothing a legislature can do about it because all of a [sudden] those products are in common use, said attorney Jon Lowry, director of the Brady Center to Fight Gun Violence Legal Action Project.

The common use test comes out of a 2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v Heller. If a gun is in common use for law-abiding purposes, the test goes, then its protected by the Second Amendment. But in its Heller ruling, the Supreme Court introduced a second caveat: Weapons that are most useful in military service M-16 rifles and the like may be banned.

Besides outlawing the ownership of a class of assault weapons including semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips the Maryland law also prohibits the sale and transfer of large-capacity magazines, which typically hold more than 10 rounds.

Gun lobby groups, however, have long argued that semiautomatic weapons are constitutionally protected.

But in the majority opinion, the federal appeals court judges reason that the difference between automatic and semiautomatic fire is only a matter of seconds between rounds. Instead, they emphasized high-capacity magazines and assault weapons ability to turn clubs and school into battlegrounds and their use in massacres from San Bernardino, California, to the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

While only 11 percent of mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015 involved high-capacity magazines or assault weapons equipped with them those shootings tended to be much deadlier than those committed with other firearms, according to the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

This opinion rested its reasoning on the facts of whats happening when people who shouldnt have them get ahold of weapons that were designed for military use and inflict horror and terror in public spaces, said Shearer. So in that respect, it provides an original blueprint for looking at those social problems and coming up with solutions for commonsense gun laws.

And that focus on military-level lethality, instead of commonality, is what lawyers across the aisle say might be the rulings greatest, or most misguided, legacy. Ultimately though, its anyones guess how many courts will follow the 4th Circuits lead. Or if theyll get the chance.

In the past, lawyers who represented the plaintiffs in state assault weapon cases didnt always send rulings to the Supreme Court for review, but Porter said he will. Basing an entire ruling on one half of a sentence in a Supreme Court case, he said, is not enough to restrict a constitutional right.

The real point is that no other court has done anything like this. Not even close, he said. [This is] the type of case that the Supreme Court should take, must take maybe will take.

Read the original here:

Lethal weapons of war - VICE News

2nd Amendment Groups Frustrated with Proposed DFL Firearm Legislation – Alpha News MN

Posted on by

St. Paul, MN Second Amendment advocacy organizations in Minnesota are responding to three firearm bills introduced by the DFL in the Minnesota State Legislature.

During a Thursday press conference DFL lawmakers unveiled three pieces of firearm legislation, fostering concern in several of Minnesotas Second Amendment supporters.

Senator Jeff Hayden (DFL Minneapolis), who lost his younger sister, Taylor, to gun violence last year while she was in Atlanta, introduced the Taylor Hayden Gun Violence Protection Act which would dedicate $200,000 in taxpayer dollars every year to be given to anti-gun groups like Everytown and Protect MN.

Hayden presented alongside law enforcement officers, anti-gun advocates, and his fellow DFL lawmakers, who introduced two additional pieces of anti-gun legislation. One bill would allow Minnesotans to obtain a court order to withhold guns from mentally unstable family members. The other bill would require background checks for Minnesotans who buy or receive guns from another private citizen. Both bills were introduced in previous legislative sessions.

We were sorry to hear of the loss that Senator Haydens family has suffered with the tragic murder of his sister last year. However, what was proposed last week is more of the same tired old gun control strategies of the past brought out from the same groups, with the same messaging, and the same falsehoods said Bryan Strawser, Chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, explaining, Voters across the state rejected their message of gun control soundly in November. Gun control groups spent almost a million dollars in out-of-state funding to win seats in the Minnesota legislature, and succeeded in only two races. Instead, voters sent the strongest pro-Second Amendment majority in recent history to Saint Paul.

Strawser is correct in his assessment of Minnesotans electing a very pro-Second Amendment majority. As Alpha News previously reported, Republicans in the State Legislature introduced bills in January to address permitless-carry and stand-your-ground legislation.

The Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance wrote a Facebook post rejecting the three pieces of DFL gun legislation, stating, The new one (bill) will force the STATE, using your money, to fund anti-gun advocacy groups. These will need to be blocked.

Subscribe to Alpha News as we continue to track this legislation.

comments

The rest is here:

2nd Amendment Groups Frustrated with Proposed DFL Firearm Legislation - Alpha News MN