Daily Archives: June 28, 2017

ECU, UNC-Charlotte free speech policy improved FIRE says | News … – News & Observer

Posted: June 28, 2017 at 6:01 am


News & Observer
ECU, UNC-Charlotte free speech policy improved FIRE says | News ...
News & Observer
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education gave new 'green light' ratings after policy changes at East Carolina and UNC-Charlotte.
ECU gives the 'green light' to free speech - WITNWITN
The best state for campus free speech is ... North Carolina? - The ...The College Fix

all 4 news articles »

See original here:
ECU, UNC-Charlotte free speech policy improved FIRE says | News ... - News & Observer

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on ECU, UNC-Charlotte free speech policy improved FIRE says | News … – News & Observer

Crosstalk: Boundaries on free speech? – Dalles Chronicle

Posted: at 6:01 am

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last week that even hate speech qualifies for constitutional free speech protection, a welcome ruling in an age when the left is using political correctness to go after anyone who doesnt share its ideology.

In a firm 8-0 decision, justices slapped down the Patent and Trademark Office for denying a band called The Slants federal trademark registration because the name is a derogatory term for Asian-Americans.

Band leader Simon Tam argued that TheSlants was Asian-American and sought to reclaim and take ownership of negative stereotypes.

The litigation centered on a provision of federal trademark law from 1946 referred to as the disparagement clause.

The clause is interpreted by an examiner who determines whether or not the mark would be found disparaging by a substantial composite, although not necessarily a majority, of the referenced group.

In classic safe-space reasoning, the trademark office determined that the name The Slants could offend a segment of the population, which the court utterly rejected, deeming free speech rights vital to a free society and inviolate in the U.S. Constitution.

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethniticity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar grounds is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedoom to express the thought that we hate, wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

Justices determined that basing a trademark prohibition on the presumed reactions of an offended group is simply government hostility and intervention in a different guise.

If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social volatility, free speech would be endangered, wrote Alito.

A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Cato Institute and a Basket of Deplorable People and Organizations urged the court to make the jobs of employees (at the trademark office) much easier by putting an end to the disparagement clause.

The brief argued that government officials cannot be trusted to neutrally identify speech that disparages. After all, the trademark office had approved rocks bands named the Dying Fetus and Sex Pistols and Niggaz Wit Attitude. So were entities with names such as Take Yo Panties Off and Capitalism Sucks Donkey Balls.

In 2014, the trademark office denied protection to the name of the Washington Redskins, despite a Washington Post poll showing that 90 percent of Native Americans were not offended by the name and only 18 percent of nonwhite football fans favored changing it.

Bureaucrats should not be given power to regulate speech based upon their own prejudices or political agenda. Especially with the frightening trend underway to target and shut down conservative Christian viewpoints.

Earlier this year, Merriam-Webster released a collegiate dictionary that was lauded by social justice activists for joining the fight to make it impossible to use any word or grammar that has not been approved as multi-culturally sensitive, nonsexist, inoffensive, nondiscriminatory, non-racist, diplomatic, gender-free or non-biased.

Merriam added 1,000 new words that included safe-space and micro-aggression. These words have been used on college campuses to stop conservative speakers from delivering offending messages.

Nothing like having a different point of view expressed to interfere with educational indoctrination.

Ending the free-exchange of thoughts, ideas and intellectual challenge sets the stage for persecution of minority voices. If this relentless assault on free speech succeeds, those who resist conformity will be silenced and no one will be safe from the tyrants who rule us.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court set back that agenda with its ruling. Even when speech offends, it must be tolerated in a free society.

RaeLynn Ricarte

Members of the Asian-American rock band The Slants have the right to call themselves by a disparaging name, the Supreme Court says, in a ruling that could have broad impact on how the Frist Amendment is applied in other trademark cases.

The case centered on the 1946 Lanham Act, which in part prohibits registration of a trademark that may disparagepersons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.

Although the act evenhandedly prohibits trademarks that insult any group, the law was deemed unconstitutional because it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

The band said it wanted to reclaim what is often seen as a slur. With the trademark, they have the right to restrict use of The Slants name.

The decision will likely impact another active case involving the Redskins, which is defending its use of a trademark some believe disparaging to Native Americans, living and dead alike. Which it is.

While I agree the government should have no role in legislating speech and morality, the decision does raise a simple question, one not easily answered: How do we, as Americans, address speech that is disparaging, hateful, expressing contempt or otherwise offensive?

An Asian-American rock band calling itself The Slants strikes some as being acceptable, much in the way many find the N-word (a word which I would never use or print) acceptable provided those using the word are black.

Words are powerful, and if it is not the role of government to legislate the use of offensive language which it isnt how do we as Americans guard against offensive and derogatory language being used against our fellow Americans?

Here in Oregon, we have even greater protections of free speech than is provided at the federal level. Article 1, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution says, ''No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion or restricting the right to speak, write or print freely on any subject whatsoever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.''

Oregons unrestrained freedom of expression has been challenged and interpreted in many ways. In 1982 an appeal of one count each of possessing obscene material to disseminate and of disseminating obscene material was upheld, the court ruling that ''In this state any person can write, print, read, say, show or sell anything to a consenting adult even though that expression may be generally or universally 'obscene.' ''

That ruling opened the door to a great deal of obscene material being made available in the state, and when applied to nudity inspired a great many strip clubs and bars as well.

In fact, Portland, Oregon is #1 in a ranking of strip clubs per capita in the United States, according to a report on priceonomics.com.

Where we accept the rights of a business to aim to tease, the proliferation of such clubs has also created in Oregon a sort of meat market, with an illegal underbelly of prostitution, drugs and sex trafficking.

With both verbal and body language protected by the Oregon constitution, and boundaries regarding both being constantly pushed and stretched, its worth noting the final line of the Oregon Constitution quoted above, which reads, but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.

We are each of us responsible for our words and actions, and have both the right and responsibility to speak against abuse of those rights.

Take the trademark Redskins. Native American individuals, tribes and organizations have been questioning the use of the name and image for decades.

Legal? Maybe. But legal doesnt make it right, and such ethnic stereotyping is harmful and its time the team (following the lead of The Dalles High School) retires this divisive logo.

Mark Gibson

Read more from the original source:
Crosstalk: Boundaries on free speech? - Dalles Chronicle

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Crosstalk: Boundaries on free speech? – Dalles Chronicle

Mideast holds Al Jazeera, free speech hostage – Washington Times

Posted: at 6:01 am

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The United States likes to hold itself up as an example to the rest of the world how humankind can flourish when afforded certain freedoms. Among those freedoms is Freedom of Speech. The ability to express ourselves, even if our opinion differs from those in control of the government is a cherished right.

We see it all around us. Broadcast personalities that lambast the President. Newspaper publishers that assign cadres of investigative reporters to dig up dirt on candidates or officials they dont like. Protestors marching in the streets or in front of the Supreme Court. In the United States people are afforded the opportunity to share their views without fear of reprisal.

It isnt like that everywhere on the planet.

It is common for some Middle East nations to operate state-run media and use censorship to control what message gets out to the masses. In essence, they control public opinion by assuring only an approved message is circulated over the airwaves and in print.

Enter the Al Jazeera television network. Funded by the royal family in Qatar, Al Jazeera offers 24-hour news programming in Arabic (and in many places English as well), broadcast to a wide range of countries, including in those where television had previously been carefully controlled by the state. Al Jazeeras own site says they air in more than 100 countries to more than 310 million people. Many Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have vocally opposed the introduction of alternative views to their public. They perceive this freedom of speech as a threat to the control of their own people.

Over the years, Al Jazeera has provided news reporting and editorial views that differed from the official line of nations such as Kuwait, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and more. Middle Eastern critics have complained that Al Jazeera sensationalizes the news in order to attract higher ratings. The complaint is laughable. We all snickered when the Obama administration would belly ache about Fox News. We smile when President Trump feuds with CNN. The idea that a news network would push its own ideas and make the governing class uncomfortable is readily accepted in the West.

What would never be accepted is the government telling a broadcast network who had offended it that it must shut down. Pull the plug. Say goodnight forever. Can you imagine the outrage if the Trump administration demanded that MSNBC go off the airwaves forever?

Yet that exact thing is happening in the Middle East. In an effort to regain sole control over the message that goes out to their nations. Saudi Arabia is leading the effort to make Al Jazeera go dark as part of a 13-point ultimatum in exchange for lifting a two-week trade and diplomatic embargo.

You may like the content offered on Al Jazeera. You may not. You may not be familiar with it at all. But regardless, you surely support the concept of a free and open media delivering its message to the broadcast world. If a broadcaster does its job well, the number of viewers, the number of advertisers and success itself will build. If not, demand will dwindle and the broadcaster will either change or vanish.

For a foreign nation or nations to hold another hostage, however, to literally blackmail them into pulling the plug on a worldwide broadcast or else face economic destruction, thats an act of war.

Perhaps more importantly, it is an act directly opposed to the freedoms we cherish in America and which we attempt to export everywhere. The Saudis and their allies are out of line in their effort to squelch free discussion of regional and world matters on the Al Jazeera airwaves.

Read more:
Mideast holds Al Jazeera, free speech hostage - Washington Times

Posted in Freedom of Speech | Comments Off on Mideast holds Al Jazeera, free speech hostage – Washington Times

Will We Ever Colonize Mars? – space.com

Posted: at 5:58 am

Astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) has to grow food on Mars, a planet where nothing grows, in "The Martian."

Paul Sutter is a research fellow at the Astronomical Observatory of Trieste and visiting scholar at the Ohio State University's Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics (CCAPP). Sutter is also host of the podcasts Ask a Spaceman and RealSpace, and the YouTube series Space In Your Face. He contributed this article to Space.com's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights.

Ah, Mars. The place that dreams are made of. As long as those dreams involve a poisonous, tenuous atmosphere, inhospitable cold and lots and lots of red. Still, people seem to want to go there. But will we ever make it?

"Yes," if you ask Elon Musk. I agree, but it probably won't be as easy as you might think, even if you think it's going to be really really hard.

What's the problem? Pick up the nearest object and throw it. I don't care if there are people around you. Do it. This is an experiment. This is science. Note how far the object goes before it hits the ground. Now pick it up and throw it harder. It went further, didn't it?

Part of the reason you didn't throw it as far as your ego thought you would was air resistance. Plowing through the atmosphere like a bull in a molecular china shop, the object quickly loses speed. But the actual "hitting the ground part is due to gravity. If you took away all the air, your thrown object would still eventually hit the ground.

In an airless world, no matter how hard you throw the object, it will reach the ground in the same amount of time. That's because gravity only works in the "down" direction, not the "over" direction, so for all gravity cares, you might as well have just lazily dropped it. But the harder you throw it, the more speed it will have, and the farther it will go before inevitably hitting the ground.

Or maybe not so inevitably. Imagine throwing something so hard that in the few seconds before it hits the ground, it reached the other side of a house. Or maybe a street. Throw it harder and you could get it across town. Across the country. Even faster: across an ocean.

Imagine throwing it so fast that by the time gravity gets around to doing its thing, the Earth has curved away from it. Gravity keeps on tugging at the object, but it frustratingly keeps missing the ground.

Ta-da: orbit!

How fast is orbital fast? Around 18,000 miles per hour (or 11 kilometers per second), give or take. There is, after all, an actual atmosphere to deal with.

You can certainly go slower and still visit space. Just make sure you packed a heat shield, because you're coming back down. You can also go even faster than orbital speed and escape the jealous clutches of Earth's gravity altogether, which is what it takes to get to Mars.

And that's the fundamental challenge. There just aren't many ways of pushing stuff that fast. Our best method so far involvesblowing up stuff in a tube, and making sure to leave a hole in one side. Newton's laws do the rest. It seems primitive, but the engineers tell me these "rockets" are actually quite complicated.

We can easily send robots to Mars, because their feelings don't get hurt if you forget to pack the oxygen and food. But people are a different well, animal, altogether. Humans are heavy. Humans need to carry little bubbles of the Earth ecosystem with them everywhere they go. Humans need room to stretch. Humans want to bring human-centric niceties, like hammers and toothpaste and lima beans.

Oh, yeah, and we need to bring them back home, I suppose. So pack the spare rockets and extra fuel.

Let this sink in: at the time of this writing, we don't have the capacity to send humans beyond Low Earth Orbit, the very edge of space, let alone Mars. Getting to Mars is hard, folks, and it requires a lot of new technology.

And that's just enough stuff for a handful of hominids to poke around the place for a bit. A colony? Look around the city you're in, and marvel at all the junk it takes to get you through the day. Think of all the layers of civilization and organization (spontaneous or otherwise) it takes to get you dinner. Made of food. Cooked. On a plate. That you will clean up with water eventually. In a house. On a street. And on and on.

A city is a massively complicated thing. Sure, we've built them from the ground up before, but colonies on Earth have a few advantages, namely, a) breathable air, b) liquid water, c) dirt and d) proximity to other Earth-based cities. Even the U.S. National Science Foundation's Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station the closest to a Mars colony you can get while keeping two feet on the Earth enjoys most of these advantages, and is still a nightmare to keep alive.

And did I mention the cosmic rays? No? Well, now's a good time cosmic rays are high-energy protons (and some heavier nuclei) zipping through the universe, generated inwell, we're not exactly sure, but probably supernovae and other cataclysmic events. The universe is swimming in them, and they cut through DNA like a hot knife through butter. The butter is you in this metaphor, just to be clear. On Earth the atmosphere makes for nice insulation, catching most of the deadliest cosmic rays, but some still make it through, possibly giving everyone especially airline crews a slightly elevated risk of cancer. [Radiation Fears Shouldn't Hold Back Mars Colonization (Op-Ed )]

But a two-year journey to Mars? Exposure on the surface? Better make sure your transports and habitats are well-shielded or buried underground or at least make sure you have some talented oncologists on staff.

Despite these challenges and more, it's notimpossibleto get people to Mars and start a viable colony. It's not like there's any physics-based reason preventing the escapades. It's just a question of engineering. And money.

Lots and lots of money.

SpaceX has an ambitious plan to get a colony on Mars through private investment in ever-larger, cheap, reusable rockets that could deliver a steady stream of people and supplies to slowly build up a colony over decades. It just takes lots of money.

NASA has an ambitious plan to build the Space Launch System, the biggest, most hard-core rocket ever made. With that kind of fire, you could send all sorts of stuff into space, including a crew to Mars. It just takes lots of money.

There are other ideas, such as Mars One ("I know, just leave everybody there, then we don't have to pay for a return ticket!") and Mars Direct, but in the end it takes time. And lots of money.

So eventually, we'll do it. Humans will go to Mars . Babies will be born there. Civilization will flourish or flounder on the Red Planet. It's just a matter of when, and of how much money we're willing to spend. Did I mention the money part?

Sure, if one day everyone decided that we don't need socks anymore, we could use the leftover savings to fast-track a Martian colony. Full of chaffed feet, but a colony nonetheless. We're certainly at the civilizational stage where sending humans to Mars is feasible, which is a huge first step. A hundred years ago, not only did we lack the technology, but also the economic wherewithal to entertain such a wacky notion.

That's the trick to getting to Mars: either we need to be so wealthy as a society that a trip is so economically insignificant that nobody cares, or there needs to be a large political (if led by NASA) or economic (if led by a company) incentive to do it. One or both of those scenarios is bound to happen, sooner or later.

Hopefully sooner.

Learn more by listening to the episode "Will we colonize Mars?" on the Ask A Spaceman podcast, available on iTunes and on the Web athttp://www.askaspaceman.com. Thanks to Ann Fisher for the question that led to this episode! Ask your own question on Twitter using #AskASpaceman or by following Paul @PaulMattSutter and facebook.com/PaulMattSutter.

Follow all of the Expert Voices issues and debates and become part of the discussion on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher. This version of the article was originally published on Space.com.

See the original post here:
Will We Ever Colonize Mars? - space.com

Posted in Mars Colonization | Comments Off on Will We Ever Colonize Mars? – space.com

Remarks by President Trump at NATO Unveiling of the Article 5 …

Posted: at 5:58 am

NATO Headquarters Brussels, Belgium

4:39 P.M. CEST

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much, Secretary General Stoltenberg. Chancellor Merkel, thank you very much. Other heads of state and government, I am honored to be here with members of an alliance that has promoted safety and peace across the world.

Prime Minister May, all of the nations here today grieve with you and stand with you. I would like to ask that we now observe a moment of silence for the victims and families of the savage attack which took place in Manchester. (A moment of silence is observed.) Thank you. Terrible thing.

This ceremony is a day for both remembrance and resolve. We remember and mourn those nearly 3,000 innocent people who were brutally murdered by terrorists on September 11th, 2001. Our NATO allies responded swiftly and decisively, invoking for the first time in its history the Article 5 collective defense commitments.

The recent attack on Manchester in the United Kingdom demonstrates the depths of the evil we face with terrorism. Innocent little girls and so many others were horribly murdered and badly injured while attending a concert -- beautiful lives with so much great potential torn from their families forever and ever. It was a barbaric and vicious attack upon our civilization.

All people who cherish life must unite in finding, exposing, and removing these killers and extremists -- and, yes, losers. They are losers. Wherever they exist in our societies, we must drive them out and never, ever let them back in.

This call for driving out terrorism is a message I took to a historic gathering of Arab and Muslim leaders across the region, hosted by Saudi Arabia. There, I spent much time with King Salman, a wise man who wants to see things get much better rapidly. The leaders of the Middle East have agreed at this unprecedented meeting to stop funding the radical ideology that leads to this horrible terrorism all over the globe.

My travels and meetings have given me renewed hope that nations of many faiths can unite to defeat terrorism, a common threat to all of humanity. Terrorism must be stopped in its tracks, or the horror you saw in Manchester and so many other places will continue forever. You have thousands and thousands of people pouring into our various countries and spreading throughout, and in many cases, we have no idea who they are. We must be tough. We must be strong. And we must be vigilant.

The NATO of the future must include a great focus on terrorism and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and on NATOs eastern and southern borders. These grave security concerns are the same reason that I have been very, very direct with Secretary Stoltenberg and members of the Alliance in saying that NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, for 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what theyre supposed to be paying for their defense.

This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States. And many of these nations owe massive amounts of money from past years and not paying in those past years. Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined. If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of their GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense and for the financing of additional NATO reserves.

We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness, and the size of forces. We have to make up for the many years lost. Two percent is the bare minimum for confronting todays very real and very vicious threats. If NATO countries made their full and complete contributions, then NATO would be even stronger than it is today, especially from the threat of terrorism.

I want to extend my appreciation to the 9/11 Memorial and Museum in New York for contributing this remnant of the North Tower, as well as to Chancellor Merkel and the German people for donating this portion of the Berlin Wall. It is truly fitting that these two artifacts now reside here so close together at the new NATO Headquarters. And I never asked once what the new NATO Headquarters cost. I refuse to do that. But it is beautiful.

Each one marks a pivotal event in the history of this Alliance and in the eternal battle between good and evil. On one side, a testament to the triumph of our ideals over a totalitarian Communist ideology bent on the oppression of millions and millions of people; on the other, a painful reminder of the barbaric evil that still exists in the world and that we must confront and defeat together as a group, as a world.

This twisted mass of metal reminds us not only of what we have lost, but also what forever endures -- the courage of our people, the strength of our resolve, and the commitments that bind us together as one.

We will never forget the lives that were lost. We will never forsake the friends who stood by our side. And we will never waiver in our determination to defeat terrorism and to achieve lasting security, prosperity and peace.

Thank you very much. Its a great honor to be here. Thank you.

END 4:48 P.M. CEST

Original post:
Remarks by President Trump at NATO Unveiling of the Article 5 ...

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Remarks by President Trump at NATO Unveiling of the Article 5 …

Trump: NATO money ‘beginning to pour in’ from alliance …

Posted: at 5:58 am

Donald Trump has pledged to make NATO partners step up their payments. | Getty

By POLITICO Staff

05/27/2017 07:21 AM EDT

President Donald Trump early Saturday tweeted that NATO countries have agreed to step up payments and money is beginning to pour in following his contentious meeting with leaders of the western alliance during his ongoing foreign trip.

Many NATO countries have agreed to step up payments considerably, as they should. Money is beginning to pour in- NATO will be much stronger, he tweeted.

Story Continued Below

Trump on Thursday berated U.S. allies for not spending enough on defense, suggesting they owe massive amounts in back payments to the U.S. under the umbrella of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all other NATO countries combined, he declared as the leaders of other NATO member countries looked on uncomfortably.

However, the commitments are for NATO allies to spend more on defense overall, mainly on their own militaries so the increases would not necessarily be seen at headquarters but in the military budgets of individual countries.

Trump in his Brussels address also declined to confirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the treaty, which guarantees the U.S. would back a treaty partner in the event of a conflict with a foreign power.

Early Saturday, the president also tweeted: Big G7 meetings today. Lots of very important matters under discussion. First on the list, of course, is terrorism. #G7Taormina.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The U.S. will be the lone holdout on endorsing the Paris accord on climate change when leaders of the G7 will issue their 2017 declaration later Saturday, officials said.

Trump had said he would give European leaders a chance to make their case for the climate change accord, but will make a final decision until returning to Washington on whether his administration will remain committed to the 2015 agreement.

Later Saturday Trump tweeted about trade talks, writing: ""we push for the removal of all trade-distorting practices....to foster a truly level playing field."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the original post:
Trump: NATO money 'beginning to pour in' from alliance ...

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Trump: NATO money ‘beginning to pour in’ from alliance …

House overwhelmingly backs NATO mutual defense – Reuters

Posted: at 5:58 am

WASHINGTON The U.S. House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously on Tuesday to reaffirm the NATO alliance's guarantee that all members defend each other, weeks after President Donald Trump raised doubts about Washington's support for the agreement.

The vote was 423-4 in the House, where Trump's fellow Republicans hold a 48-seat majority, for a resolution "solemnly reaffirming" the U.S. commitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

It also supports calls for every NATO member to spend at least 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense by 2024.

During a visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels in May that was part of his first overseas trip, Trump pointedly did not mention U.S. support for that critical portion of the NATO charter, rattling allies. Instead, he used a speech there to demand that member states pay more for the alliance's defense.

Trump later said he backed the mutual defense agreement, and other senior officials rushed to express U.S. support.

"With all the threats we and our partners face around the globe, a strong and secure NATO is more important than ever before," Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement.

The resolution was co-sponsored by Ryan and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as the number two Republican and Democrat in the chamber, and the Republican chairman and the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; editing by Jonathan Oatis)

MOSCOW/KIEV/WASHINGTON A major global cyber attack disrupted computers at Russia's biggest oil company, Ukrainian banks and multinational firms with a virus similar to the ransomware that infected more than 300,000 computers last month .

CARACAS A Venezuelan police helicopter strafed the Supreme Court and a government ministry on Tuesday, escalating the OPEC nation's political crisis in what President Nicolas Maduro called an attack by "terrorists" seeking a coup.

Read the original:
House overwhelmingly backs NATO mutual defense - Reuters

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on House overwhelmingly backs NATO mutual defense – Reuters

Other View: NATO can fight terrorism one sinking boat at a time – Twin Falls Times-News

Posted: at 5:58 am

The following editorial appears on Bloomberg View:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has now formally enlisted in the fight against Islamic State. It can begin by helping to stem the flow of refugees trying to reach Europe from North Africa.

This would be more than a humanitarian exercise; it would be a counterterrorism operation. Wherever refugees gather in hopelessness, violent extremists have a fertile recruiting ground. And the number of refugees is staggering.

Nearly 200,000 people fleeing violence and poverty tried to cross of the Mediterranean last year, and at least 5,000 died in the attempt. The U.N. estimates that there are more than half a million refugees, asylum seekers and displaced people in Libya alone. Neither the fractured Libyan government nor the European Union can cope with the numbers, leaving hundreds of thousands of people in makeshift refugee camps some of which are controlled by human traffickers and resemble concentration camps, according to a German government report.

Those who make it across the Mediterranean dont fare much better. Most end up in overcrowded camps in Italy where social services are lacking and applications for asylum languish. Those intercepted in Libyan waters are sent back. Sometimes the traffickers dump their human cargo in the sea to avoid capture.

So what can NATO do? With more than 700 ships at its disposal, a lot.

For starters, it can build on Italian-led Operation Sophia, which has saved thousands of lives but is woefully inadequate to the task. NATOs sophisticated surveillance capabilities, such as long-range patrol airplanes and satellite imagery, can monitor ports in Africa and the Middle East and aid in search-and-rescue efforts. NATO can also help the EUs efforts to professionalize the Libyan coast guard.

The alliance can foster far more naval cooperation and intelligence sharing among its members, and with intergovernmental entities like Interpol. This should also involve another underutilized asset: private shipping companies, which are obligated to respond to other vessels in distress. NATO could also encourage member states build more camps on Mediterranean islands and could aid with construction, perimeter security, health care and the like.

NATO patrols in the Mediterranean could also provide a more direct benefit in the fight against terrorists: stemming the flow of arms from the Middle East to Islamist terrorists in North Africa. Islamic State already has a foothold in Libya and is trying to expand into Tunisia.

Two years ago the civil war in Syria caused the exodus of millions. Now as fighting intensifies, NATO cant afford to make the same mistake.

View post:
Other View: NATO can fight terrorism one sinking boat at a time - Twin Falls Times-News

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on Other View: NATO can fight terrorism one sinking boat at a time – Twin Falls Times-News

NATO says more Russian buzzing of Baltic airspace a risk for deadly mistakes – Deutsche Welle

Posted: at 5:58 am

The Baltic nations and Poland just got some long-awaited NATO boots on the ground, inaugurating new standing battalions last week amid multinational exercises along the Russian border. In the skies above, the Kremlin made sure everyone knew it was watching, sending its warplanes to "buzz" Baltic airspace and even, according to the Lithuanian ministry of defense, to illegally enter it on two occasions.

Finland and Sweden also noted incidents in their vicinities. In a dramatic encounter on June 21, a Polish F-16 approached the plane carrying Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu on his way to Kaliningrad, videotaped from aboard the Russian plane. Russian media reported a Russian escort plane intervened between the NATO jet and Shoigu's aircraft.

The same day the US reported a Russian jet flew less than two meters from one of its surveillance planes, which a Pentagon spokesman said was dangerous due to the Russian pilot's "high rate of closure speed and poor control of the aircraft." Sweden summoned Russia's ambassador after a Russian fighter jet flew unusually close to a Swedish reconnaissance plane in international airspace above the Baltic Sea.

NATO notes more Russian 'visitors'

NATO's deputy spokesperson Piers Cavalet confirmed to DW that there was an unusual spike in the Russian air presence over the Baltic Sea last week. "These included strategic bombers, fighters, reconnaissance, transport and other aircraft," Cavalet said, adding that planes operating as part of NATO's air-policing operations or from national air forces followed standard procedure in "scrambling" to monitor the aircraft.

Cavalet rejected Russian accusations that NATO planes are the ones creating tensions, saying "when NATO aircraft intercept a plane they identify it visually, maintaining a safe distance at all times. Once complete, NATO jets break away. All our pilots behave in a safe and responsible way."

NATO says there's been a spike in the number of Russian planes flying too close to allied aircraft

Speaking Monday in Brussels, the chairmanof NATO's military command, General Petr Pavel, added that it's not just the airspace over the Baltic Sea where the spike is evident, but also over the Black Sea.

"In most of these cases we haven't been observing [the flights] would be clearly hostile," Pavel said at an event hosted by Politico. "[W]e are mostly witnessing what we call unprofessional behavior in the airspace. When these rules are broken the chance of getting into an incident is pretty close."

With Russia beginning its own military exercises along its western border in September, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told DW he is concerned about an even higher risk of such accidents then.

World events warrant concern for air clashes

But Thomas Frear, a research fellow with the European Leadership Network, has been writing for years about what he calls the "escalatory potential" of encounters between Russian and Western aircraft and ships. After a decline in tension in 2016 following a 2014/2015 spike, Frear believes the situation has become more critical now, with the stand-off between the US and Russia in Syria.

"The unexpectedly hostile relations between [Russia and] the Trump administration, the ever increasing tempo of military exercises in Europe, and the closer proximity of Russian and coalition aircraft in Syria have combined to drive the number of incidents up again," he told DW.

Frear said that Western authorities are not taking the situation seriously enough, especially the risk to civilian aircraft. "I view this as a combination of complacency and a lack of understanding of the problem," he said, explaining that international regulations governing interaction between aircraft do not apply to military planes.

Neither are national air forces required to be transparent about their rules of behavior with respect to non-military aircraft, Frear said. "[C]ivilian pilots will be unaware of military patterns of behavior," he noted, "risking an accident."

While there are some efforts to change this, Frear said it would require amending the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, a global agreement, making the possibility of any quick action quite remote.

US-Russian tension over Syria worse than Cold War

Frear urges immediate attention to the potential NATO-Russia conflict brewing beyond the Baltics in Syria, where the status of the US-Russian air safety agreement in the country is now uncertain.

"Greater engagement by both Russia and the US-led coalition in Syria has certainly heightened the possibility of a lethal clash," Frear warned, pointing to the fact that NATO ally Turkey already shot down a Russian plane it said crossed into its airspace in 2015. In addition, he said, "Russian and US aircraft have already attacked ground forces allied to the other, leading to rhetoric from military leaders of a bellicosity not seen even at the height of the Cold War."

As well as the need for the Syrian deconfliction agreement to be preserved, Frear said joint groups of experts should be urgently examining how to craft a broader NATO-Russia agreement on avoiding and managing hazardous incidents. In the shortest term, he writes in his report, "there should be zero tolerance for reckless behavior of individual military commanders, pilots and other personnel, especially by the Russian leadership. Use of dangerous military brinkmanship tactics for political signaling is a high-risk strategy, which may backfire in case of an incident."

Read the original post:
NATO says more Russian buzzing of Baltic airspace a risk for deadly mistakes - Deutsche Welle

Posted in NATO | Comments Off on NATO says more Russian buzzing of Baltic airspace a risk for deadly mistakes – Deutsche Welle

Alleged NSA Leaker Reality Winner Appears in Federal Court, Trial Date Set – NBCNews.com

Posted: at 5:57 am

Lawyers gather in court for the NSA contractor accused in top secret leak, Reality Winner, on June 27. Richard Miller

Attorney Titus Nichols told reporters outside court Tuesday afternoon that the discussion over the order centered on both sides knowing the rules of engagement regarding any potentially classified information.

That way if there is any type of information that is classified at any level, that everyone knows what the rules of engagement will be, so there is not going to be a risk of accidental release of information and definitely not going to be any intentional release of information thats classified, he said.

Prosecutor Jennifer Solari said during the hearing that a note pad with handwriting in Farsi was being reviewed and translated. Nichols told reporters after the hearing that the defense had not seen the notebook and thus was not able to discuss anything about it at the time.

Prosecutors are also examining two computers, hard drives, a tablet and four phones seized from Winner. They agreed to have all evidence discovery filed by August 25.

Nichols added that Winner was maintaining pretty well and that every conversation he had had with her has been positive, as his client remains in jail awaiting her trial.

Earlier this month,

Terry Pickard reported from Augusta, Georgia, and Daniella Silva reported from New York.

Read the original post:
Alleged NSA Leaker Reality Winner Appears in Federal Court, Trial Date Set - NBCNews.com

Posted in NSA | Comments Off on Alleged NSA Leaker Reality Winner Appears in Federal Court, Trial Date Set – NBCNews.com