Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations

Peace for the World ! Your War Our Lives

Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)

A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)

Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations

(Full Story)

Search This Blog

Systematic Genocide of Tamils

Systematic Genocide of Tamils1956.. 1958.. 1961.. 1974.. 1977.. 1979.. 1981.. 1983.. .. 2008 State-sponsored anti-Tamil violence in 1956, 1958, 1961, 1974

Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Ntions

Friday, May 31, 2019

7 dead, 21 missing after tour boat sinks in Hungary

A Hungarian army boat passes under Margit Bridge in Budapest as rescue efforts continued Thursday following a ship accident. (Bernadett Szabo/Reuters)


The Associated Press · Posted: May 30, 2019
Rescue workers scoured the Danube River in downtown Budapest on Thursday for 21 people missing after a sightseeing boat carrying South Korean tourists sank in a collision with a larger cruise ship during an evening downpour.
Seven people have been confirmed dead and seven have been rescued, Hungarian officials said. Police have launched a criminal investigation.
The South Korea-based Very Good Tour agency, which organized the trip, said the boat was on its way back after an hourlong night tour on Wednesday evening when the collision happened.
Nineteen South Koreans and two Hungarian crew members are missing. The tour party had consisted of 30 tourists, two guides and a photographer on a package tour of Europe. Pal Gyorfi, spokesperson for the National Ambulance Service, said those rescued were hospitalized in stable condition.
The sunken boat was located early Thursday near the Margit Bridge, not far from the neo-Gothic parliament building on the riverbank.

Hundreds of rescue workers try to help at the bank of Danube River in Budapest after a smaller boat collided with a cruise ship. (Gergely Besenyei/AFP/Getty Images)
Police Col. Adrian Pal said the boat turned on its side and sank in about seven seconds. He said rescue operations were hampered by the rain and the fast flow of the rising Danube. The search for the 21 missing extended far downstream, even into Serbia, where the Danube goes after leaving Hungary.
The river, which is 450 metres wide at the point of the accident, was fast flowing and rising as heavy rain continued in the city. Water temperatures were about 10 to 12 C.

Major search effort

Earlier, the news website Index.hu said one of those rescued was found near the Petofi Bridge, which is about three kilometres south of parliament.
Dozens of rescue personnel, including from the military and divers, were involved in the search. Employees from the South Korean Embassy in Budapest were assisting Hungarian officials in identifying those rescued and the deceased.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in instructed officials to employ "all available resources" to support the rescue efforts in Hungary. Moon's spokesperson, Ko Min-jung, said in Seoul that Moon also ordered the launch of a government task force led by Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha and for officials to maintain close communication with the family members of the South Korean passengers.

South Korean Embassy personnel help identify victims during a search operation for survivors from the tour boat. (Zsolt Szigetvary/MTI/The Associated Press)
A team of South Korean officials left for Hungary on Thursday to assist with the rescue operations and support passengers and their families. Kang was also to travel to Hungary.
The ministry in a briefing Thursday said that the Seoul government will closely cooperate with Hungarian officials so that the rescue efforts can proceed swiftly and effectively. It said the tourists were not wearing life jackets.
The Very Good Tour agency said the tourists left South Korea on May 25 and were supposed to return June 1.
Most of them were family groups, and they included a six-year-old girl. Her status wasn't immediately clear but she didn't appear on a list of survivors provided by the tour agency.
Senior agency official Lee Sang-moo disclosed the identities of the seven rescued South Koreans — six women and one man, aged between 31 and 66. The company is arranging for family members of the tourists to travel to Hungary as soon as possible.

A man walks past a logo for the Very Good Tour company which organized the Budapest tour for a group of South Korean tourists. (Jung Yeon/AFP/Getty Images)
The boat that sank was identified as the Hableany (Mermaid), which is described on the sightseeing company's website as "one of the smallest members of the fleet." It has two decks and a capacity for 60 people, or 45 for sightseeing cruises.
Mihaly Toth, a spokesperson for the Panorama Deck boating company, said the Hableany was on a "routine city sightseeing trip" when the accident happened. He told state television that he had no information about any technical problems with the boat, which he said was serviced regularly. Hajoregiszter.hu, a local ship-tracking website, lists the Hableany as having been built in 1949 in what was then the Soviet Union.
The Margit Bridge connects the two halves of the city, Buda and Pest, with a large recreational island in the middle of the Danube. It is the bridge just north of the famous Chain Bridge, a suspension bridge originally built in the 19th century that, like the Parliament, is a major tourist draw in the heart of the city.
The river flows south, meaning that survivors were likely to be swept through the well-populated, historic part of the city.
Index.hu reported that other riverboats shined spotlights into the water to aid with the search, and that a film crew operating on the Liberty Bridge farther down the river directed its lighting equipment toward the Danube to assist.
Budapest has enjoyed a boom in overseas tourism in recent years. Long-haul flights from as far away as Dubai and Beijing increasingly fly visitors from Asia and the Middle East to the Hungarian capital, a relatively affordable but history-rich European destination. 
Posted by Thavam at 12:01 AM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Wanted Burma firebrand abbot ‘not afraid’ of arrest


2017-05-03T130533Z_1683817830_RC1A747019E0_RTRMADP_3_MYANMAR-ROHINGYA-WIRATHU-940x580

Buddhist monk Ashin Wirathu looks on as he attends a convention held by the Bodu Bala Sena (Buddhist Power Force, BBS) in Colombo September 28, 2014. Source: Reuters/Dinuka Liyanawatte
@AsCorrespondent-2019-05-30
AN ultra-nationalist monk dubbed the “Buddhist Bin Laden” for his anti-Muslim vitriol said Wednesday he was not afraid of arrest as police pursued him on charges of stirring up unrest.
Wirathu has long been the face of the country’s hardline Buddhist movement, notorious for espousing hate against Islam and particularly the long-persecuted Rohingya minority.
A court issued an arrest warrant for the abbot late Tuesday under article 124(a), which targets anyone who “excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government”.
Wirathu told local media by phone Wednesday he was in Yangon, but said the police had not yet come for him.
“If they want to arrest me, they can do it,” the Irrawaddy newspaper quoted him as saying. “I’m not afraid.”
The exact reasons behind the warrant have not been clarified but the rabble-rousing monk has recently given several provocative speeches at nationalist rallies.
In April, he took aim at the country’s civilian leader Aung San Suu Kyi.
“She just dresses up like a fashionista, wears makeup and walks around in stylish, high-heeled shoes, shaking her ass at foreigners,” he told a cheering crowd.
At another rally in Yangon, he caused widespread offence by saying “soldiers protecting the country should be worshipped like Buddha”.
He has also upset the country’s highest Buddhist authority, the State Sangha Maha Nayaka — a state-appointed body of high-ranking monks that oversees the clergy across the Buddhist-majority country.
Last week, the council summoned him for a disciplinary hearing Thursday over his “involvement with social affairs during a rally” — but announced Wednesday this had been postponed due to “current events”.

‘Face of Buddhist Terror’

Wirathu is no stranger to jail.
He was sentenced in 2003 to 25 years behind bars under the former military junta on charges including preaching extremism and distributing banned books.
As the country opened up, he was released in 2012 alongside several thousand political prisoners.
He immediately returned to his hardline preachings, calling for boycotts of Muslim-owned businesses and restrictions on interfaith marriages.
The abbot appeared on the cover of “Time” magazine as “The Face of Buddhist Terror” in 2013.
In 2015 he called United Nations special envoy Yanghee Lee a “whore”.
The Buddhist authority had previously prohibited him from speaking in public for a year after he delivered “hate speech against religions” — but the ban expired in March last year.
Facebook blacklisted him in January 2018 after a string of incendiary posts targeting the Rohingya.
Rights groups say these helped whip up animosity towards the Muslim minority, laying foundations for a military crackdown in 2017 that forced some 740,000 to flee to Bangladesh.
Like many in Burma, Wirathu pejoratively refers to Rohingya as “Bengali”, implying they are illegal immigrants.
Refugees’ testimonies of mass killings, rapes and arson spurred UN investigators to call for the prosecution of top generals for “genocide” and the International Criminal Court is conducting a preliminary probe.
“The day the ICC comes here… is the day Wirathu holds a gun,” he told a rally last October.
© Agence France-Presse
Posted by Thavam at 11:53 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Responsibility Of ‘Moderate’ Muslims

They may not represent the Islam that moderate Muslims know and follow, but their actions are inspired by their own version or interpretation of it.

 
by Rafiullah Kakar-2019-05-30
 
The Easter bombings in Sri Lanka once again turned a spotlight on the challenge of global jihad, terrorism and Islamophobia. Muslim scholars and community leaders from across the world have condemned the attack, dissociated themselves from the perpetrators and defended Islam as a religion of peace.
 
 
Many Muslims are constantly feeling like they need to apologise. Still, they continue to face a backlash and stereotyping of their community. The fear of reprisals combined with growing Islamophobia compels Muslims to insist that these acts have nothing to do with their faith. This urge to separate religion from the violence committed in its name is well intentioned and understandable, yet counterproductive.
 
It is true that these terrorists do not represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who oppose terrorist groups like the militant Islamic State (ISIS), the Taliban, and Al Qaeda. However, it does not necessarily mean that they have nothing to do with religion. They may not represent the Islam that moderate Muslims know and follow, but their actions are inspired by their own version or interpretation of it.
 
Here, it is worth emphasising that, as a Muslim, I strongly believe that the Muslim belief is no more “violent” than those of other religions. Neither is religion the only cause of such violence. Instead, violent extremism is a complex phenomenon with multiple driving factors including injustice, identity crisis, extremist ideologies, and socioeconomic reasons. Their salience varies across time and space. There is no clear profile or single causal pathway that can define the process of radicalisation. There is also no denying that colonialism, Western military interventions in Muslim countries and support to authoritarian Muslim rulers have played a role in the rise of Islamic extremists and militants in the Muslim world. To summarise, it is often a combination of politics and extremist interpretations of Islam that produces the vitriolic narrative and rampage that most Muslim countries face today.
 
The problem is that while Muslims almost always talk about the politics that creates terrorism, and rightly so, they are reluctant to discuss the role of radicalised interpretations in inspiring terrorist violence. In Muslim-majority countries, a small segment of Muslims do recognise the challenge posed by radical interpretations of religion and disputes a literalist reading advocated by fundamentalists. Quranic verses, they argue, are often misinterpreted and quoted out of context. There are, however, two points which must be considered in the debate.
 
First, these debates are restricted to the drawing rooms and private gatherings of a tiny liberal, secular and left-leaning class that is often insulated from the rest of society which is generally conservative. Publicly, most Muslims are reluctant to openly engage in a debate regarding religion. Those who do so often pay a huge price.
 
Second, the lack of an authoritative hierarchy in doctrinal interpretation means that any Muslim can interpret religion the way he or she likes. While making Islam more egalitarian and democratic, this also makes it easier for extremists to promulgate their literal interpretations despite opposition by a large majority of Muslim clerics and scholars.
 
Moderate Muslims cannot be blamed for not engaging in open public debate because most Muslim countries lack the environment required for discussing sensitive issues. The countries where there is space for critical debates are the relatively advanced democracies of the developed world. However, in almost all such countries, Muslims are also a minority and often the victims of hatred and prejudice inspired by Islamophobia. Consequently, conscious of their minority status, moderate and liberal Muslims in these countries hold back their views on religion for fear of being seen as abettors of Islamophobia.
 
The rise of right-wing nationalism in Europe and America has only reinforced their concerns. Diaspora Muslims fear that even pointing out that militancy might have something to do with a certain interpretation will feed into Islamophobia. The nuance about particular interpretations, the argument goes on, would gradually disappear in the public debate and Islam as a religion and Muslims as a group would be criticised. These are legitimate concerns and it is, therefore, not surprising that diaspora Muslims scholars and intellectuals are at the forefront of the “IS-has-nothing-to-do-with-religion” school of thought.
 
The real challenge for Muslims is to be able to have these difficult conversations in a way that does not lead to more Islamophobia or buttress the West’s Orientalist and stereotypical view of Islam and the Muslim world. Moderate Muslims must understand, deconstruct and delegitimise the extremists’ version of Islam rather than denying the existence of their interpretation. By denying any link between faith and the violence carried out in its name, Muslims foreclose all public debate on different interpretations and help extremist Muslims get away with their context-less versions.
 
This denial has given right-wing nationalists in Europe and America an opportunity to cash in on the growing public unease about Muslims and their faith. They need to realise that the extremists’ interpretation can only be countered and discredited publicly if its existence is first admitted and then actively contested and challenged. This may sound like a daunting task, but it is the only way moderate Muslims can ensure that their vision of a more tolerant and inclusive Islam prevails.
Posted by Thavam at 11:44 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Saudi Arabia says firm stand needed to deter Iran, Iraq demurs

Iraq's President Barham Salih arrives to attend the meeting for the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC),
Arab and Islamic summits in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia May 30, 2019. The Presidency of the Republic of Iraq Office/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY.

Marwa Rashad, Aziz El Yaakoubi-MONEY NEWS-MAY 30, 2019

MECCA, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia’s king told an emergency Arab summit on Friday that decisive action was needed to stop Iranian “escalations” in the region following attacks on Gulf oil assets, as American officials said a U.S. military deployment had deterred Tehran.

A Gulf Arab statement and a separate communique issued after the wider summit supported the right of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to defend their interests after the attacks on oil pumping stations in the kingdom and tankers off the UAE.

But in a sign of regional tensions, Iraq, which has good ties with neighbouring Iran and Washington, said it objected to the Arab communique, which stated that any cooperation with Tehran should be based on “non-interference in other countries”.

“The absence of a firm deterrent stance against Iranian behaviour is what led to the escalation we see today,” King Salman told the two consecutive meetings late on Thursday night.

The ruler of the world’s top crude exporter said Shi’ite Iran’s development of nuclear and missile capabilities and its threatening of world oil supplies posed a risk to regional and global security.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Thursday that the attacks on the four vessels near a major bunkering hub, just outside the Strait of Hormuz, were “efforts by Iranians to raise the price of crude oil around the world.”

Riyadh accused Tehran of ordering the drone strikes, which were claimed by the Iran-aligned Houthi group that has been battling a Saudi-led military coalition in Yemen for four years.

U.S. national security adviser John Bolton said on Thursday that evidence of Iran’s being behind the tanker attacks would be presented to the U.N. Security Council as early as next week.

Tehran, which is locked in several proxy wars with Saudi Arabia in the region, denies any involvement.

“The kingdom is keen to preserve the stability and security of the region, to spare it the scourge of war and to realise peace and stability,” King Salman said.

IRAQ PLEA

Iraqi President Barham Salih, asking the gathering to support Iraq’s stability, said that rising tensions with Iran could spark a war if not managed well and voiced hope that Iran’s security would not be targeted.

Pompeo has warned Iraqi leaders that if they failed to keep in check Iran-backed militias, which now form part of Baghdad’s security apparatus, the United States would respond with force.

Tensions have risen between the United States and Iran after U.S. President Donald Trump a year ago withdrew Washington from a 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran, re-imposed sanctions and boosted its military presence in the Gulf.

Bolton has said that Iranian mines were “almost certainly” used in the tanker attacks. An Iranian official dismissed that as “a ludicrous claim.”

The Islamic Republic has said it would defend itself against any aggression. Iranian Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri has said Tehran was not allowed to pursue development of nuclear weapons as it was banned by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

UAE's Foreign Minister Affairs Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan arrives arrives to attend the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) meeting in Riyadh

Slideshow (2 Images)

The final communique said regional stability required the establishment of an independent Palestinian state along 1967 borders to include Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

MILITARY DEPLOYMENT

U.S. special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, said on Thursday that a repositioning of U.S. military assets in the region had deterred Iran, but that the United States would respond with military force if its interests are targeted.

The United States has deployed 900 additional troops to the region and extended the stay of 600 other service members, after speeding up deployment of an aircraft carrier strike group and sending bombers and additional Patriot missiles.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi told the summit it was time to renew discussions on joint Arab defence mechanisms.

The United States and the UAE, which hosts a U.S. air base, on Wednesday activated a defence cooperation agreement signed earlier this year.
 
Gulf states have a joint defence force under the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), but the alliance has been fractured by a boycott imposed on Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and non-GCC Egypt since mid-2017.

The Gulf communique said the six nations had discussed the GCC defence mechanism during their meeting.

Qatari premier Abdullah bin Nasser Al Thani, whose country hosts the largest U.S. military base in the region, attended the summits, the most senior Qatari official to visit the kingdom since the embargo.

Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom in Washington, Ali Abdelaty and Mohamed Elsherifin Cairo, Guy Faulconbridge in London, Lisa Barrington and Sylvia Westall in Dubai, Eric Knecht in Doha and Babak Dehghanpisheh in Geneva; Writing by Ghaida Ghantous; Editing by Leslie Adler and Grant McCool


Posted by Thavam at 11:40 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

As he exits, Mueller suggests only Congress can ‘formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing’


Special counsel Robert S. Mueller said May 29 that "any testimony" from the Department of Justice would not "go beyond" what is already public. (Photo: Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

By Matt Zapotosky ,Devlin BarrettandFelicia Sonmez-May 29 at 3:48 PM

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III said Wednesday that his office could neither clear nor accuse President Trump of obstructing justice, leaving room for Congress to make a call where he would not and fueling impeachment demands among some Democrats.

In his first public remarks on the case since he concluded his investigation, Mueller said that if his office “had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”

But if Mueller was trying to suggest that Democrats could initiate impeachment proceedings, he also seemed to dash any hopes they might have had that he would be their star witness, ready and willing to detail new and unflattering information his office had uncovered about Trump.
Subscribe on:

The special counsel — who noted he was closing up shop and formally resigning from the Justice Department — said that he hoped the news conference would be his last public comments and that if he were compelled to testify before Congress, he would not speak beyond what he wrote in his 448-page report.

[Pelosi faces immediate pressure to begin Trump impeachment]

The comments — the first time Mueller has spoken on live television since his investigation began — mostly reemphasized what the special counsel already had said in his report, and they instantly fueled partisan infighting in Washington.


Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III on May 29 said it would be “unfair” to accuse President Trump of a crime since he could not be charged with a crime. (Photo: Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

Some Democrats intensified their calls for impeachment, though their leadership in the House remained noncommittal.

In a statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has resisted a move toward such a step, merely thanked Mueller for providing “a record for future action both in the Congress and in the courts” and said lawmakers would “continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and secure our democracy.”

Several Democratic presidential contenders — including Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg — said Mueller’s comments were akin to an impeachment referral. Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) said Congress “has a legal and moral obligation to begin impeachment proceedings immediately.”

Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.), the only Republican to call for impeachment, tweeted, “The ball is in our court, Congress.”

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the administration was “prepared” for an impeachment fight, though she called on Democrats to move on. “After two years, the special counsel is moving on with his life, and everyone else should do the same,” she said.

Trump said in a tweet: “Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The case is closed! Thank you.” Jay Sekulow, his attorney, said Mueller’s statement “puts a period on a two-year investigation that produced no findings of collusion or obstruction against the President.”

That sentiment was echoed by prominent Republicans, including the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), and the House minority whip, Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). They are among Trump’s biggest supporters on Capitol Hill.

[Mueller and House Democrats at impasse over how much of his testimony would be public]

Democrats vowed to press ahead with their investigations of Trump, and they did not immediately abandon the idea of compelling Mueller to testify. House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a statement after the news conference that Mueller “needs to testify before Congress” and that Mueller’s full, unredacted report needs to be turned over to lawmakers. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said, “While I understand his reluctance to answer hypotheticals or deviate from the carefully worded conclusions he drew on his charging decisions, there are, nevertheless, a great many questions he can answer that go beyond the report, including any counterintelligence issues and classified matters that were not addressed in his findings.”

A House Democratic leadership aide said the chamber still intends to call the special counsel to appear before Congress — even if lawmakers have to compel his testimony. Should Mueller refuse, Democrats could issue a subpoena, though they were hoping to avoid such a measure.

Asked Thursday whether he would take such a step, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) paused, flashing a pained expression face before responding, “Mr. Mueller told us a lot of what we need to hear today.”

[Roz Helderman on Post Reports: ‘I don’t think Bob Mueller winks and nods. He has said what he has to say.’]

The aide, who follows the House investigations closely and was speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity, argued that there is value in having Mueller appear in public, even if he refuses to answer questions beyond what is in the report. Most Americans, Democrats note, have not read Mueller’s findings — but potentially millions would tune in to a hearing broadcast on national television to hear him review some of what he found.

“There are tons of benefits to the visual. . . . To animate and dramatize the report elevates public awareness of it,” the aide said.

Mueller’s highly anticipated public statement was observed by about a dozen government lawyers who stood in the back of the room on the Justice Department’s seventh floor as Mueller spoke alone at a lectern. Attorney General William P. Barr was traveling in Alaska. The White House was notified Tuesday night that Mueller planned to make the statement, according to a senior White House official. Trump held a conference call with his lawyers before and after Mueller’s remarks, according to Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, and told them that he did not think Mueller made any news or broke new ground. Giuliani said the phrase used by the president and his team was, “Nothing new.”

Speaking softly and with an occasional rasp in his voice, Mueller laid out his reasons for not wanting to testify — mainly his belief that his report speaks for itself and his intent to return to private life.
“I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak to you in this manner,” Mueller said. “I am making that decision myself. No one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.”

If pressed to testify, he added, he “would not go beyond our report,” because “the report is my testimony.”

“We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself,” Mueller said.

[Mueller complained that Barr’s letter did not capture ‘context’ of Trump probe]

Mueller thanked Barr for making most of his report public — suggesting that there might no longer be tension, as there once was, over how the attorney general was characterizing Mueller’s work. After Mueller had finished his investigation, but before his report was released, Barr had sent lawmakers a four-page letter describing the special counsel’s principal conclusions. That led Mueller to write his own missive to Barr in which he alleged that the attorney general “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of investigators’ work.

Mueller did not address the dispute specifically Wednesday but said he did not question Barr’s “good faith” in releasing the report. He left without taking any questions.

After the news conference, spokespeople for the Justice Department and the special counsel’s office issued a joint statement saying there was “no conflict” between Barr’s and Mueller’s previous statements on how Mueller decided he would not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed justice.

Mueller noted that his team found “insufficient evidence” to accuse Trump’s campaign of conspiring with Russia to tilt the 2016 election but emphasized that investigators did not make a similar determination on whether the president obstructed justice.

That much was already in Mueller’s report. Mueller’s team wrote that Justice Department legal guidance prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president prevented prosecutors from accusing the commander in chief of a crime, even in a private report.

On Wednesday, Mueller sought to explain his thinking more fully. A president, he said, “cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional.” And he noted, “Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.”

“Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider,” Mueller said.

But Mueller said his team was still allowed to investigate Trump because it was possible that others could be charged. He did not say what prosecutors might have done if the law allowed a president to be charged, but he hinted that lawmakers could still pursue the matter. Hundreds of former federal prosecutors have opined that Mueller laid out sufficient evidence in his report to make an obstruction case against Trump.

Since filing their detailed report, Mueller and his team have been frustrated by what they perceive as a lack of understanding even among lawmakers about a critical legal point — that Justice Department policy and fairness prohibit Mueller from reaching a decision on whether the president committed a crime.

Under that policy, Mueller and his team also think it would be improper for Mueller to say that the president would be charged with obstruction were it not for the Justice Department policy, because saying that would amount to a criminal accusation against the president, according to people involved in the discussion.

Mueller’s team came to believe that making any sort of impeachment referral to Congress also would fall under the category of accusing the president of a crime, according to people familiar with their discussions.

For those reasons, Mueller has been guarded in his comments about the findings and wants to avoid being drawn into a back-and-forth in congressional testimony that could be tantamount to accusing the president of a crime, these people said.

Rachael Bade, Carol D. Leonnig, Karoun Demirjian and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.
Posted by Thavam at 11:23 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

North Korea 'executes envoy to US' after Trump summit failures – report

South Korean paper claims Kim Hyok-chol has been killed and senior negotiator Kim Yong-chol subjected to forced labour
 North Korean leader Kim Jong-un arrives for the second US-North Korea summit in Hanoi, Vietnam. The leader has purged some of his senior staff. Photograph: Wallace Woon/EPA

Justin McCurry-Fri 31 May 2019 

North Korea’s special envoy to the US, who was credited with paving the way for nuclear talks with Washington, has reportedly been executed over the failure of the recent summit between North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, and Donald Trump.

The South Korean Chosun Ilbo newspaper cited unnamed sources as saying that Kim Hyok-chol and foreign ministry officials who conducted working-level preparations for February’s doomed Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi, were executed in March.

Kim Yong-chol, a senior official who had been US secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s counterpart in the run-up to the summit, is said to have been subjected to forced labour and “ideological education”, the newspaper added.

The South Korean government has not commented on the newspaper’s claims, while the regime in Pyongyang has challenged previous media claimsabout executions.

The Chosun Ilbo claimed, however, that Kim had launched another purge of senior officials in an attempt to divert attention from internal turmoil and discontent.

“Kim Hyok-chol was investigated and executed at Mirim airport with four foreign ministry officials in March,” an unnamed North Korea source said, according to the newspaper, adding that they were charged with spying for the US.

Kim Hyok-chol had been the counterpart to Stephen Biegun, the US special representative for North Korea, before the summit.

Kim Yong-chol was forced to work in Jagang province after his dismissal, the newspaper’s source said, adding that Kim Song-hye, who carried out working-level negotiations with Kim Hyok-chol, was sent to a political prison camp.

Shin Hye-yong, who interpreted for Kim at the Hanoi summit, was reportedly detained at a political prison camp for undermining Kim’s authority by making a critical interpreting mistake, the newspaper said.

Kim Yo-jong, the regime leader’s sister who has been at her brother’s sidethroughout both nuclear summits, is also said to be “lying low” on her brother’s orders, the paper reported, citing an unnamed South Korean government official, who said: “We are not aware of Kim Yo-jong’s track record since the Hanoi meeting.”

While North Korea has not confirmed or denied the executions and other actions taken against officials, the state newspaper Rodong Sinmun said in a commentary on Thursday: “Acting like one is revering the leader in front [of others] but dreaming of something else when one turns around, is an anti-party, anti-revolutionary act that has thrown away the moral fidelity toward the leader, and such people will not avoid the stern judgment of the revolution.”

“There are traitors and turncoats who only memorise words of loyalty toward the leader and even change according to the trend of the time.”

It is the first time since the December 2013 execution of Jang Song-thaek, Kim’s uncle and mentor, that expressions such as “anti-party, anti-revolutionary” and “stern judgment” have appeared in Rodong Sinmun, according to Chosun Ilbo.

Kim has presided over several high-profile purges since he became leader in late 2011 after the death of his father, Kim Jong-il.

He has also punished those whose behaviour he considers disrespectful. In 2016, he ordered the execution of Ri Yong-jin, a senior official in the education ministry, for falling asleep at a meeting chaired by the North Korean leader.

A year earlier, Hyon Yong-chol, a former North Korean defence chief, was reportedly executed with an anti-aircraft gun, for disrespectful behaviour that included napping during a military rally attended by Kim.
Posted by Thavam at 11:06 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

Trump bypassed Congress on Saudi weapons sale. Here's how he did it

Critics say administration used 'manufactured' emergency to push $8bn sale without oversight from lawmakers
Saudi air force cargo plane at airfield in Yemen's central province of Marib last year (AFP/File photo)

By Ali Harb-30 May 2019
Schoolchildren in the United States are taught from a young age that a separation of powers is the backbone of American democracy.
The system also comes with checks-and-balances meant to limit the power that the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government can wield - to prevent overreach.
Last week, however, President Donald Trump threw that civics lesson out the window, declaring an emergency to bypass US lawmakers and greenlight an $8bn weapons deal with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cited recent tensions with Iran to justify pushing the sales through without congressional oversight.
Critics have rejected that justification, noting mounting scepticism towards the Trump administration's claims of an imminent Iranian threat in the Middle East. 
"It seemed more like a manufactured justification that so far is not sitting well with many members of Congress," said Christina Arabia, director at the Washington-based Security Assistance Monitor, which tracks US arms sales and military assistance to foreign countries.
Indeed, senior lawmakers have vowed to push back against the decision.
But the US president holds broad authority, and while the law grants Congress oversight over weapon sales, the administration ultimately has the upper hand.
Here's how it works:

The process

Whether a foreign country is purchasing arms from private American manufacturers or directly from the US government, the State Department has to certify that the sale is in the national security interest of the United States.
The administration, then, has to notify Congress of details of the deal.
While it does not need lawmakers' approval for the sale to go through, members of Congress have 30 days to try to stop it.
Still, blocking a weapon transfer to a foreign nation is a complicated process. Congress would have to pass a disapproval bill in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the president can still veto the legislation.
Because of the historical consensus in Washington over strategic foreign policy issues, Congress has seldom protested administration-approved sales.
'It seemed more like a manufactured justification that so far is not sitting well with many members of Congress'
- Christina Arabia, Security Assistance Monitor
In fact, US lawmakers have only succeeded in passing a piece of disapproval legislation against a weapons transfer once.
And that victory was short-lived.
In 1986, Congress blocked the sale of advanced missiles to Saudi Arabia. Then-President Ronald Reagan successfully vetoed the legislation, but he dropped parts of the purchase to satisfy some lawmakers and avoid a congressional override of his objection.
Congress can overturn presidential vetoes with a two-third majority in the House and the Senate.
Despite the difficulty of blocking weapon sales outright, lawmakers do have the power to hold up and derail transfers.
That's what Bob Menendez, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, did with the precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which prompted the recent emergency declaration.
Last year, Menendez halted the entire process by refusing to acknowledge the Trump administration's notification of a sale until he received specific clarifications about US policy in Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is leading a devastating military campaign.
Sometimes, the objection of senior lawmakers convinces the administration to stop the sale on its own, in order to avoid a potential standoff with Congress that could prove politically costly.
For example, in 2017, then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson stopped the sale of handguns to guards for Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan after protests from key legislators.

Emergency

But the same Arms Export Control Act that gives Congress oversight over major sales also grants the president a way to go around lawmakers.
To bypass Congress, the president must declare that "an emergency exists which requires such sale in the national security interests of the United States".
In practice, the president only needs to submit a justification for such a decision, making the executive branch the sole decider over what constitutes an emergency, Arabia told Middle East Eye.
Despite the relative ease of declaring an emergency, presidents have used that loophole only four times over the past 40 years to push weapon deals through without congressional scrutiny.
Coincidentally, three of those incidents involved Saudi Arabia and its allies:
  • In 1979, Jimmy Carter issued an emergency proclamation to ensure the speedy delivery of arms shipments to the Saudi-backed government in Yemen amid military confrontations with the now-dissolved socialist republic of South Yemen.
  • In 1984, Ronald Reagan used the same provision to send 400 portable anti-aircraft Stinger missiles to Saudi Arabia during the Iran-Iraq war.
  • In 1990, George H W Bush bypassed Congress to send weapons to Saudi Arabia after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
  • In 2006, George W Bush rushed the delivery of precision-guided missiles to Israel during its war against Lebanon without giving Congress a 30-day notice period.
Pompeo cited those precedents in his statement last week, noting that the emergency determination will be a "one-time event".
"This specific measure does not alter our long-standing arms transfer review process with Congress," the secretary of state said.
"I look forward to continuing to work with Congress to develop prudent measures to advance and protect US national security interests in the region."

Congress tried to end US support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen. Here's how it failed
Read More »
Arabia noted that the previous emergency declarations were done during wartime, whereas Trump's decision aimed to strip Congress of its powers because of legislators' concerns about Riyadh's human rights violations.
"That's what makes this extremely problematic - because of who the recipients are, because of their abuse, because it's going around Congress for those things," she told MEE.
Since the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the hands of Saudi government agents at the country's consulate in Istanbul late last year, Trump has repeatedly defied Congress in support of his allies in Riyadh.
While a Republican-controlled Senate unanimously passed a resolution backing the CIA's conclusion that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was responsible for the journalist's killing, the Trump administration didn't budge.
In fact, it has ignored a deadline mandated by the Global Magnitsky Act, a US human rights law, to determine the perpetrators of the crime.
Trump also vetoed legislation that aimed to end US support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.
Marcus Montgomery, a fellow at the Arab Center Washington DC who tracks congressional affairs, called last week's emergency declaration a "clear escalation" by the White House against Congress.
Even key Trump allies, including Senator Lindsey Graham, have expressed opposition to the administration's decision, he said.  
"They're basically accusing the president of stripping Congress of what little oversight that they already have," Montgomery told MEE.
"Even if nothing happens immediately and these arms sales do go through, I could see where in the future Republicans and Democrats could come together to put major, major conditions on future aid to Saudi Arabia."
Posted by Thavam at 11:05 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

What it was like to be a Democrat who voted to impeach Bill Clinton


The front page of The Washington Post on Dec. 20, 1998, the day after President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. (Washington Post Staff/The Washington Post)

By Amber Phillips-May 29

Today, crossing party lines on impeachment will get you ostracized by your party, as Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) knows all too well. Was it always this way?

Twenty years ago, five Democratic members of Congress voted to impeach President Bill Clinton, a member of their own party. Two of those lawmakers told The Fix that back then, lawmakers had much more freedom to think for themselves.

"I really don't remember much pressure,” said Gene Taylor, a former congressman from Mississippi and the only Democrat who voted for all four articles of impeachment. “I think everyone understood that every single member had to vote their conscience on that, and I think people more or less left each other alone to their own decisions.”

Taylor said his decision to impeach Clinton was “remarkably cut and dry” for him: Clinton broke the law when he lied under oath to a grand jury about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. “We are a nation of laws, and being a lawmaker, I thought it was very im

portant that the president be the one who obeys those laws,” he said. “It really was that simple.”
Paul McHale, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, also voted to impeach Clinton. He was traveling abroad when The Fix reached him, so we spoke briefly by email. Like Taylor, he said he does not regret his vote.

"Neither my judgment nor motivation has since changed,” McHale said, pointing us to a speech he gave on the House floor explaining his vote:

“When the president took an oath to tell the truth, he was no different at that point from any other citizen, both as a matter of morality and as a matter of legal obligation,” McHale said in the speech. “We cannot excuse that kind of misconduct because we happen to belong to the same party as the president, or agree with him on issues, or feel tragically that the removal of the president from office would be enormously painful for the United States of America.”

The Clinton era was still a polarized one, and there were political costs for those who crossed party lines to impeach Clinton. Of the five Democrats who ultimately voted to impeach Clinton, three eventually became Republican (including Taylor) and McHale worked in the George W. Bush administration. However, none received the equivalent outcasting that Amash has faced for saying he’s open to impeachment: a primary challenger.

[Democrats who stood with Clinton through impeachment urge caution in pursuit of Trump]

As I wrote last week, in the Clinton era, there were more swing districts for both parties, and there was an understanding among party leaders that vulnerable members had to do what they had to do to represent their constituents and stay elected. The people who broke from their party had constituencies that were atypical from the rest of their party — one Democrat who voted to impeach Clinton, Ralph Hall, represented rural Texas, for example. Such a district doesn’t exist for Democrats anymore.

Both Taylor and McHale said they cast their vote to impeach Clinton with future generations, future presidents in mind. McHale said that at the end of his speech in particular he spoke “with President Trump — or someone like him — in mind”:

“By his own misconduct, the president displayed his character and defined it badly,” McHale said of Clinton at the time. “His actions were not ‘inappropriate.’ They were predatory, reckless, 
breathtakingly arrogant for a man already a defendant in a sexual-harassment suit — whether or not that suit was politically motivated. And if, in disgust or dismay, we were to sweep aside the president’s immoral and illegal conduct, what dangerous precedent would we set for the abuse of power by some future president of the United States? We cannot define the president’s character. But we must define our nation’s.”

When The Fix asked Taylor if he had any advice for Democrats in the House today on whether to impeach Trump, he simply said: “Do the best thing.”
Posted by Thavam at 10:58 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Director says video shows Sri Lanka army committed war crimes

www.facebook.com/

oneislandtwonations

www.facebook.com/oneislandtwonations


25th Regular Session Human Rights Council


No Fire Zone - Full Documentary/Movie - Channel 4 - HQ












Warning Disturbing Images






Sri Lanka Brief

Last king of Kandy remembered in Tamil Nadu


The paintings of the King and Queen made by a British Army officer before they were taken to Vellore
The throne, crown and other regalia of Sri Wikrama Rajasinghe in the display of Colombo museum. Image courtesy: Srilanka.travel-culture.com

*Justice for All? - The International Criminal

*Reconciliation in Sri Lanka Slow progress

LLRC head’s wife to be appointed as Justice Ministry Secretary

A FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS

THE BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY

JUSTICE C. V. WIGNESWARAN, FORMER JUDGE OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF SRI LANKA

NORAD

*Pawns of Peace:

Warscapes

Sri Lanka Newspapers

SRI LANKA NEWSPAPERS


LF::Latheef Farook


LankaFocusNews
by Sunanda Deshapriya
1265990210-sri-lankan-protest-against-media-suppression-in-colombo_242898
IFJ Asia

My Photoi
Freedom House
sunday-leader-masthead

Asian Correspondent


LEN logo

tumblr_inline_oz6hkgv4Et1qb1icv_400


http://www.salem-news.com/graphics/snheader.jpg

Vikalpa

lankaturth
கலையகம்

பதிவுகள்

logo.gif (31909 bytes)

தமிà®´ோசை

BBCSinhala.com
BBC SINHALA
Tamil Mirror
Centre for Policy Alternatives
Reporters Without Borders
Inner City Press

Return to frontpage

NESOHR header
Black July 1983

Home


*by Vssubramaniam

ohttp://cpj.org/css/images/header5.jpg

AP

Reuters Canada

THE FINANCIAL TIMES
Channel 4 News
Channel 4 video
Channel 4 video(Tamil)


AFP
video

AFP.com
-
The Independent

The Guardian home

New York Post


i

Hy Other Accounts


  • http://www.google.com/uds/css/youtube-logo-55x24.pnghttp://www.youtube.com/nelvely

  • http://www.google.com/help/hc/images/logos/blogger_logo.gif
    Blogger (Blogspot) - twonationsoneisland

  • Picasa Web Albums
  • tumblr

https://si0.twimg.com/a/1297125922/images/fronts/logo_withbird_home.png

  • Twitter - 1island2nations
  • typepad
  • delicious
  • site-ceylon2nations

    https://www.clipular.com/dashboard#clips

LinkedIn-http://www.linkedin.com


  • http://www.scoop.it/t/tamil-news
    http://www.scoop.it/resources/img/v3/logo4.png

    Netvibes - Parishttp://www.netvibes.com/oneislandtwonations

Nimalka Fernando speech

Dr.Brian Senewiratne’s







Sri Lanka Newspapers


In pursuit of justice in the Philippines


Inner City Press

*Wikileaks on shell attacks



AlJazeeraEnglish


AlJazeeraEnglish



International Crisis Group
UNICEF

Asian Human Rights Commission

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), in coordination with Right To Life in Sri Lanka

ideos


Video

Video


http://s.huffpost.com/images/v/logos/v3/homepage.png?v16
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/contributors/amarnath-amarasingam/headshot.jpgAmarnath Amarasingam
*Get Amarnath Amarasingam's RSS Feed

*LANKA

sonali samarasinghe

STANDARD

*Gordon Weiss

image description

*CBC News Politics


*Channel 4 News special report:
Sri Lanka - civil war

Tamil Canadians


*Monks destroy Muslim shrine as police stand idle


*Univer
sity of Jaffna, Sri Lanka.

Jaffna (City)


Hot News-Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations

*Sri Lanka: Jaffna Public Library destroyed by Sinhala Police -

Is Sri Lanka guilty of war crimes? Video

-------------------------------

Where do we go from here?

From Haiti Hell: Perspectives from the ground a year after the earthquake


-------------------------------------

Srilanka;One Island Two Nations-Hot News>>>>>

Journalists For Democracy in Sri Lanka






*Journalists For Democracy in Sri Lanka

Lasantha

Dr. Vickramabahu

HonourableDr. Vickramabahu Karunarathne



  • Sri Lanka massacred Tamils and Hillary Clinton's ...
  • Commonwealth summit
  • The unspeakable truth
  • CanadianHART (Canadian Humanitarian Appeal for Rel...
  • Home

Blog Archive

  • ►  2010 (121)
    • February (5)
    • March (3)
    • April (3)
    • May (7)
    • June (4)
    • July (6)
    • August (8)
    • September (10)
    • October (15)
    • November (21)
    • December (39)
  • ►  2011 (1578)
    • January (37)
    • February (42)
    • March (46)
    • April (80)
    • May (107)
    • June (117)
    • July (130)
    • August (102)
    • September (145)
    • October (250)
    • November (241)
    • December (281)
  • ►  2012 (5418)
    • January (336)
    • February (372)
    • March (345)
    • April (372)
    • May (365)
    • June (398)
    • July (394)
    • August (446)
    • September (480)
    • October (513)
    • November (670)
    • December (727)
  • ►  2013 (9238)
    • January (729)
    • February (697)
    • March (739)
    • April (713)
    • May (740)
    • June (751)
    • July (774)
    • August (804)
    • September (826)
    • October (807)
    • November (830)
    • December (828)
  • ►  2014 (9482)
    • January (807)
    • February (721)
    • March (813)
    • April (774)
    • May (849)
    • June (802)
    • July (815)
    • August (765)
    • September (771)
    • October (757)
    • November (768)
    • December (840)
  • ►  2015 (9268)
    • January (836)
    • February (717)
    • March (765)
    • April (735)
    • May (775)
    • June (744)
    • July (774)
    • August (796)
    • September (773)
    • October (803)
    • November (773)
    • December (777)
  • ►  2016 (8978)
    • January (814)
    • February (776)
    • March (829)
    • April (759)
    • May (756)
    • June (790)
    • July (720)
    • August (610)
    • September (553)
    • October (777)
    • November (793)
    • December (801)
  • ►  2017 (9201)
    • January (816)
    • February (739)
    • March (809)
    • April (747)
    • May (766)
    • June (779)
    • July (808)
    • August (805)
    • September (769)
    • October (779)
    • November (603)
    • December (781)
  • ►  2018 (7467)
    • January (796)
    • February (737)
    • March (800)
    • April (725)
    • May (667)
    • June (568)
    • July (506)
    • August (458)
    • September (494)
    • October (481)
    • November (580)
    • December (655)
  • ►  2019 (4782)
    • January (589)
    • February (584)
    • March (660)
    • April (594)
    • May (662)
    • June (643)
    • July (260)
    • August (1)
    • November (179)
    • December (610)
  • ►  2020 (3302)
    • January (625)
    • February (647)
    • March (800)
    • April (820)
    • May (410)
  • ▼  2021 (41)
    • January (41)
Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.