Friday, January 20, 2017

FROM HEADLINE TO PHOTOGRAPH, A FAKE NEWS MASTERPIECE

Image:Cameron Harris in his home office in Annapolis, Md., on Monday. He created a fake story about an electrical worker who stumbled upon stacked boxes of ballots pre-marked for Hillary Clinton. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times.

By SCOTT SHANE-JAN. 18, 2017

The money, not the politics, was the point, he insisted. He had graduated from Davidson College in North Carolina in May, and he needed to pay his living expenses. “I spent the money on student loans, car payments and rent,” he said.

By the time he launched his fraudulent story on ballot fraud, he had found minimal success with “Hillary Clinton Blames Racism for Cincinnati Gorilla’s Death,” a reference to the sad tale of Harambe, the gorilla shot after he grabbed a little boy visiting the zoo. He had done better with “Early Morning Explosion in DC Allegedly Leaves Yet Another DNC Staffer Dead,” spinning off conspiracy theories around the earlier shooting death of a Democratic National Committee staff member.

Later, he would tell gullible readers “NYPD Looking to Press Charges Against Bill Clinton for Underage Sex Ring,” “Protesters Beat Homeless Veteran to Death in Philadelphia” and “Hillary Clinton Files for Divorce in New York Courts.” Eight of his stories would merit explicit debunking by Snopes.com, the myth-busting site, but none would top the performance of the ballot box fantasy.

President Obama thought the fake news phenomenon significant enough to mention it as a threat to democracy in his farewell speech in Chicago last week. “Increasingly,” he said, “we become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there.”

That was exactly the insight on which Mr. Harris said he built his transient business: that people wanted to be fed evidence, however implausible, to support their beliefs. “At first it kind of shocked me — the response I was getting,” he said. “How easily people would believe it. It was almost like a sociological experiment,” added Mr. Harris, who majored in political science and economics.

By his account, though he voted for Mr. Trump, his early preference had been for Senator Marco Rubio. Mr. Harris said he would have been willing to promote Mrs. Clinton and smear Mr. Trump had those tactics been lucrative. But as other seekers of clicks discovered, Mr. Trump’s supporters were far more fervent than Mrs. Clinton’s.

In late October, with the inevitable end of his venture approaching, Mr. Harris sought an appraisal for the web domain that by then had vaulted into the web’s top 20,000 sites. An appraiser said that given the traffic, he could probably sell it for between $115,000 and $125,000.

But Mr. Harris made a costly mistake: He decided to wait. Days after the election, denounced for making the peddling of fake news remunerative, Google announced that it would no longer place ads on sites promoting clearly fabricated stories.

A few days later, when Mr. Harris checked his site, the ads were gone. He checked with the appraiser and was told that the domain was now essentially worthless.

All was not lost, however. He had put a pop-up on the site inviting visitors to “join the ‘Stop the Steal’ team to find out HOW Hillary plans to steal the election and what YOU can do to stop her!” and collected 24,000 email addresses. He has not yet decided what to do with them, he said.

Asked whether he felt any guilt at having spread lies about a presidential candidate, Mr. Harris grew thoughtful. But he took refuge in the notion that politics is by its nature replete with exaggerations, half-truths and outright whoppers, so he was hardly adding much to the sum total.

“Hardly anything a campaign or a candidate says is completely true,” he said.

Lately he has picked up Mr. Trump’s refrain that mainstream news organizations are themselves regular purveyors of fake news. Last week, when BuzzFeed released what it called an “explosive but unverified” dossier suggesting that Russia had planned to bribe and blackmail Mr. Trump, Mr. Harris wrote on Twitter:

He did not mention his own expertise in the field.

NYT

Trump Promises ‘America First’ in Defiant and Divisive Inaugural Speech

Anxious allies and a polarized country may find little solace in the new president’s isolationist speech.

BY DAN DE LUCE-JANUARY 20, 2017

Under dark skies and drizzling rain, Donald Trump vowed after being sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday to make a radical break with decades of U.S. policy, pledging to dump free trade, block immigration, and focus above all on “America First.”

Taking the oath of office after a bitter election campaign that exposed a country riven by deep political divisions, Trump offered no olive branch to his political opponents, and instead reached back to his divisive campaign rhetoric. Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes, the largest margin ever for the winner in the electoral college.

The real estate tycoon and former reality television host blamed Washington’s political leaders for neglecting ordinary Americans and said his movement “will determine the course of America and the world for many, many years to come.”

Trump’s 16-minute address, a mashup of his campaign stump talks and the ominous doomsday speech he gave at the Republican Party Convention, lacked the customary eloquence and unifying tone of previous inaugural remarks by his predecessors. Instead, he again painted a dark picture of the country, where empty factories are “scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation,” and inner cities are engulfed in violence and poverty.

“This American carnage stops right here and stops right now,” said Trump, wearing a red tie and a dark overcoat.

Trump signaled no retreat from his populist agenda on trade, immigration, and on scaling back commitments overseas. Apart from a passing mention of retaining old alliances, he painted a picture of a hostile world that would no longer be permitted to take advantage of America. Unlike other presidents in the modern era, he offered no pledge to preserve America’s global leadership in promoting peace, protecting human rights, or encouraging democracy and open markets.

“From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America First,” Trump said.

“Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs,” he said.

The Trump White House announced right after his speech that the United States will withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a planned Asian trade pact that was the centerpiece of President Obama’s pivot to Asia but which was doomed in Congress.

The crowd was markedly smaller than the throngs that came out for Obama’s inaugural ceremonies in 2009 and 2013. A sea of “Make America Great Again” hats and “45” winter caps extending to the Washington monument gave the subdued crowd gathered on the national mall a reddish hue.

The U.S. Marine Band played patriotic music and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang in a ceremony carried out with precision. But the pomp could not hide the deep political divisions inside the Capitol building and across the country, aggravated by disturbing questions hanging over Russia’s interference in the election itself.

Trump took the oath after U.S. spy agencies found that Russia had meddled in the election to try to tip the scales in his favor, and as reports emerged that law enforcement and intelligence agencies were investigating Trump’s aides and associates for alleged links to Moscow.

That alleged connection has some Americans worried. A protester from Chicago named Christopher stood near the Washington Monument, where he held a sign reading “Nyet my president.” He wasn’t planning to come to Washington, he said, until one man changed his mind: Vladimir Putin.

“I came to make my voice heard. He wouldn’t be here without Putin. I don’t want to see my country run by the next Putin,” Christopher said.

The contrast in Washington between those jubilant at Trump’s inauguration and those defiant was stark.

The Mall, packed to the gills four years ago, was nearly empty, and many streets of Washington were ghostly, save for sporadic clashes between police and rioters who smashed storefronts and bus stops. After Trump’s speech, police and rioters continued to battle it out, with cops launching percussion grenades just blocks from the White House.

A “women’s march” slated for Saturday in Washington, which has evolved into a vehicle for discontent at the new president, is expected to draw numbers that could dwarf the inauguration crowd.

In some parts of the city on Friday, thousands of protesters peacefully marched, carrying signs calling for “resistance.” Red-hatted Trump supporters and chanting protesters squared off, peacefully for the most part, in scattered corners of town.

Randy “Dog” Dugey and his wife Karen “Flea” Dugey rode their motorcycles down from Pennsylvania, two of dozens of “Bikers for Trump” celebrating the new president. The two had never been to an inauguration before, but said that, given the shambles they felt America was in, it was time to attend.
“I’ve worked my whole life to have the government take half my paycheck,” Dog said. Trump, he hoped, wouldn’t give the American people a “hand out, but a hand up.”

Flea, who said she was a Democrat and briefly supported Hillary Clinton, registered this spring to vote for the first time — for Trump. Dog said he didn’t support Trump in the primaries, but decided he was “the right person for the job.”

While Trump extolled the movement he created, others who feel threatened said they were galvanized with new energy. “Donald Trump doesn’t worry me as much as the people who follow him. The really extremist ones, who might take strong actions,” said Juan Bruno Avilo Jimenez, who came to the United States from Mexico in 2003 and advocates for immigrant rights.

“He made people wake up, now we are going to reorganize ourselves, with many organizations fighting for rights,” he said.

In a speech that hardly touched on foreign policy and America’s global role in the world, Trump did not refer to U.S. military missions in Afghanistan, where nearly 10,000 troops are deployed, or to the U.S.-led air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, where thousands of U.S. military advisers are on the ground. But he repeated his vow to take on Islamist extremists, promising to “unite the civilized world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.”

In the days leading up to the inauguration, there were signs that anxious allies were coming to terms with a new American president they had dreaded.

In November, France’s U.S. ambassador, Gerard Araud, had reacted to Trump’s victory with an ominous tweet, stating that the world as we know it is “crumbling before our eyes.”

On Thursday, Araud hosted an inauguration party with hundreds of guests, including Trump loyalist, Ric Grenell, pictured beaming alongside the senior French diplomat.

Israel offered Trump a warm welcome. “A true friend of Israel will enter the White House today,” said Israel U.N. envoy Danny Danon.

Britain and others offered perfunctory congratulations. “Look forward to continuing strong U.S.-UK bond,” Britain’s Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson wrote in a tweet to Trump.

The head of NATO reminded Trump of the alliance’s importance. NATO’s “strength is as good for the United States as it is for Europe,” Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in a statement released shortly after Trump’s inauguration on Friday.

Newspaper headlines around the globe reflected the anxiety about where President Trump will lead the United States, from a possible shakeup of NATO to a reversal on climate commitments and a potential trade war with China.

“Take a deep breath, this is really happening,” the Buenos Aires Herald proclaimed. “We Have No Idea What This Guy is Gonna Do,” fretted a headline in Britain’s Guardian.

Putin couldn’t find time to watch the ceremony, his spokesman said, but will read about it in the news.
Former presidents Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton attended the ceremony, in keeping with tradition. Hillary Clinton, who Trump defeated in his upset November election victory, also was on hand despite the angry tone of the campaign, in which Trump had called for her to be locked up in prison. Wearing an elegant white dress and smiling, she looked well rested compared to the day she conceded her electoral defeat before her disappointed supporters.

Trump arrives in office after a disorganized and chaotic transition effort, with many key senior national positions still vacant and amid infighting over who should be appointed to hundreds of jobs across the government.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Friday that his Democratic caucus would not stand in the way of confirming the first two of Trump’s cabinet picks later Friday: retired Marine Gen. James Mattis as defense secretary, and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly as homeland security secretary.

The failure to fill other key jobs — including senior deputy posts — at the White House, State, Defense and Homeland Security departments has raised fears in Congress that the Trump administration could be blindsided by adversaries or unexpected crises. As a result, Trump’s spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday that about 50 officials from the former Obama administration would be asked to stay on temporarily due to the crucial nature of their jobs. [link]

Trump’s populist appeals to put “America First” echoed the same slogan that first appeared at the outbreak of World War II, with isolationists arguing against America entering the conflict in Europe. That movement was tinged with anti-semitic overtones, including from its chief spokesman, the famed aviator Charles Lindbergh.

As Trump reiterated his antipathy to free trade, his skepticism of traditional alliances, and his affinity for Russian President Vladimir Putin, many around the world began looking to German Chancellor Angela Merkel to defend the post-World War II liberal order — a role typically played by an American president.

Merkel was the last foreign leader that Obama spoke to in his final hours in office. In a phone call on Thursday, Obama and Merkel agreed that “close cooperation between Washington and Berlin and between the United States and Europe are essential to ensuring a sturdy trans-Atlantic bond, a rules-based international order, and the defense of values that have done so much to advance human progress in our countries and around the world,” the White House said in a statement.

Obama “noted that it was fitting that his final call with a foreign leader was with Chancellor Merkel, and he wished her the very best going forward.”

Molly O’Toole, Robbie Gramer, Emily Tamkin, Ruby Mellen, Kavitha Surana, and Colum Lynch contributed to this article.

Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images

Inauguration protesters vandalize city, try to disrupt Trump’s oath, police arrest nearly 100

A group of protesters with the Black Lives Matter movement shut down an inauguration entrance checkpoint at John Marshall Park in downtown Washington. (The Washington Post)

By Theresa Vargas, Taylor Hartz and Arelis R. Hernández January 20 at 2:17 PM

Protesters made themselves heard in the nation’s capital Friday, leaving shattered property along some city blocks and disrupting security checkpoints to President Donald Trump’s inauguration, where they slowed crowds from entering onto the Mall and, in at least one spot, stopped them completely.

Inauguration protesters vandalize city.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Obama commutes sentence of Chelsea Manning in last-minute clemency push

President Obama makes a controversial decision about Chelsea Manning, just days before he leaves office. Veuer's Nick Cardona has that story. Buzz60

An undated file photo provided by the U.S. Army of Pfc. Chelsea Manning.(Photo: AP)

By Theresa Vargas, Taylor Hartz and Arelis R. Hernández January 20 at 2:17 PM

WASHINGTON — President Obama has commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the Army private serving a 35-year sentence for leaking classified military secrets to Wikileaks, the White House said Tuesday.

Manning will be released May 17 after serving nearly seven years for stealing and releasing secret cables that divulged U.S. military and diplomatic operations

The soldier, who was convicted under the name of Bradley Manning and now identifies herself as a woman, attracted widespread support from privacy advocates and transgender activists who complained that she couldn't get the medical help she needed in the military prison in Leavenworth, Kan.

The action brought immediate rebuke from Republicans on Capitol Hill. House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., called it "outrageous" and said it set "a dangerous precedent that those who compromise our national security won’t be held accountable for their crimes.”

"I don’t understand why the president would feel special compassion for someone who endangered the lives of our troops, diplomats, intelligence officers, and allies," Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. "We ought not treat a traitor like a martyr."

Obama also granted full pardons in a number of high-profile cases, including:

? Former general James Cartwright, convicted last October of lying to the FBI in a leak investigation. The former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was accused of lying about his role in disclosing classified information about the use of the Stuxnet computer virus to disrupt Iran's nuclear program.

? Baseball Hall of Famer Willie McCovey, convicted of tax evasion in 1996.

? Ian Schrager, co-founder of New York's famed Studio 54 nightclub, convicted of tax fraud in 1980.

? Stephen Lee Arrington, convicted in a drug conspiracy that involved carmaker John Z. DeLorean, known for making the car made famous in the Back to the Future trilogy starring Michael J. Fox. DeLorean was acquitted, but Arrington pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Obama also commuted the sentence of Oscar Lopez Rivera, a Puerto Rican nationalist who was the last remaining member of a Puerto Rican terrorist group still in prison. President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of the group for setting off bombs in 1970s and '80s, but Rivera refused the clemency to protest another member who was not released.

Those names were among the list of 64 pardons and 209 commutations Obama granted Tuesday, with less than four days left in his presidency, bringing his total number of acts of clemency to 212 pardons and 1,385 commutations. That's more pardons than President George W. Bush, but still near a historic low. But his commutations set an all-time record, surpassing Woodrow Wilson's 1,366.

Unlike full pardons, which extinguish all the legal consequences of a conviction, a commutation has the more limited effect of shortening a sentence while leaving other consequences intact.

Read more:

On clemency, White House sees distinction between Snowden and Manning cases

Unlike other executive actions, the constitutional power to grant "pardons and reprieves for offenses against the United States" is one of the president's most absolute powers, and cannot be revoked by President Trump.

The bulk of the clemency actions Tuesday were part of Obama's clemency initiative, which seeks to shorten the sentences of drug offenders who received long mandatory minimum sentences under laws that have since been rolled back.

The White House did not comment on any specific case, though White House Counsel Neil Eggleston said in a statement that the presidential mercy shows that the United States is a "forgiving nation, where hard work and a commitment to rehabilitation can lead to a second chance."

But Obama aides seemed to signal that Obama was considering presidential mercy for Manning last week, when Earnest seemed to take pains to differentiate Manning's case from that of Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agencycontractor accused of violating the espionage act by leaking details of secret surveillance programs.

"The situation of these two individuals is quite different," Earnest said. "I know that there's a temptation because the crimes were relatively similar, to lump the two cases together. But there are some important differences, including the scale of the crimes that were committed and the consequences of their crimes."

Read more:

For recipients of Obama's presidential pardons, vindication is sweet

President Obama pardons Willie McCovey for tax evasion

A full pardon for Snowden — the only available form of clemency, since he hasn't been convicted yet — appears unlikely. "Mr. Snowden has not filed paperwork to seek clemency from the administration," White House press secretary Josh Earnestsaid Tuesday. Obama has previously made that a requirement for consideration.

Also, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had promised to allow himself to be extradited to the United States if Manning was released. He's now holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he's sought diplomatic protection. Assange praised the "courage and determination" of Manning supporters on Tuesday, but did not immediately say whether he would make good on the promise. The White House did not rule out additional clemency actions before the end of Obama's term.

Earnest said the president was aware of the perils of late-term, politically motivated clemency actions that have become the norm in the last two administrations, and suggested that Obama wouldn't grant any more controversial pardons on his way out the door on Friday.

"The president has been judicious about using this authority in a way that he believes is consistent with American interests and the pursuit of justice. And if we feel it is ever necessary for us to make that case, we'll want to make sure that we have ample opportunity to make it," he said.

The fragrance of human freedom blossomed throughout!

Jan 19, 2017

The media and social media became excited by the news about a proposal submitted to the cabinet to legalize homosexuality. We saw how the so-called nationalistic media that usually throws stones from glass houses, and even the social media and the media and individuals who say they appear for the rights of the Tamils, denuded themselves by their responses to this news. It is important that these so-called progressives are exposed through such attempts and news.

While modern civilizations recognize the rights of the homosexuals, as a country what we do is beat the drum of 2500 years of history and do our homophobian utmost against a human right. We may like it or we may not like it personally, there is a segment of society that gets attracted to the same sex. That happens due to the working of their hormones. There may be laws or there may not be laws, but they too, eat, drink, wear clothes, laugh and speak just like us. Only in the case of sexual attraction, they have a different liking from that of the majority. As a media institution and as individuals, we appear for their right to be treated as equals in society.

Actually, talking about an act to legalize homosexuality is irrelevant here. We appear for the annulment of clause 365 (a) of the penal code, which says an indecent act between two persons is an offence punishable by imprisonment of not more than two years. But, the term obscene act is not explained here. We appear for the abolition of this Victorian era law that is being used by Sri Lanka’s legal system, which is without a proper policy, in its own interpretation and to its own liking, to repress a minority.

Irrespective of by whoever and whenever human rights are curtailed, we have a policy of unconditionally opposing that. We do not fear the regular name callings against us such as Tigers, NGO, dollar zombies, separatists etc. We want to erase out of the law book the laws that curtail human freedom and repress a minority, irrespective of whether the European Union wants that or does not want that to happen. We will not hesitate to make our media usage on that behalf.

The following article was done by a staff writer. We are publishing it again as it is a matter that should be discussed now, more than ever before. Let us not learn not to look squint-eyed at different hormone activities among our own. Let us value human freedom over everything else!

Retroactive pardon and the minority sexual community

Have you heard about the Alan Turing law? An "Alan Turing law" is an informal term for a proposed law in the United Kingdom, which would serve as an amnesty law to retroactively pardon men who had been cautioned or convicted under historical legislation that outlawed homosexual acts. The proposal is named after Alan Turing, the World War II code-breaker and computing pioneer, who was convicted for gross indecency in 1952.

Alan Turing, after whom the proposed law has been informally named, was a mathematician, code-breaker and computing pioneer who died in 1954 in suspicious circumstances, following his conviction for gross indecency in 1952.

Turing himself was pardoned posthumously through the royal prerogative of mercy under David Cameron in 2013. How many do you think have been found guilty under this law? It is 65,000 men. Of them, only 15,000 are living today, and they are over 70 years of age.

Who makes laws on civility in this society? Should the minority be blamed if the majority opinion is different to that of the specific communities? Should the rights of the minority be violated just because of that reason? When the majority is homophobic, should the others pay for it? Aren’t the minority too, humans?

This is the time ‘Frangipani’ is being screened in Sri Lanka. This is a time a voice is being raised in the country more than ever before on behalf the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. England has journeyed towards progressiveness through the Alan Turin law. What about us? We still live with a legal system that was dumped on us by the whites when they left us in the 19th century. Clause 365 (a) of the penal code makes it a criminal act thus:

The penal code was introduced by the British in 1883. Under it, it is an offence if a gross indecent act takes place between two men, two women or between a man and a woman. Let’s forget for a moment the same-sex indecent acts. How does an act of gross indecency between a man and a woman is defined? Under it, such an act is taboo even between a married couple. Most importantly, can the government or the police peep into the bedrooms to see if such gross indecent acts take place? Homosexual acts between men were illegal until the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 in England and Wales, the Criminal Justice Act 1980 in Scotland, and the Homosexual Offences Order 1982 in Northern Ireland. The very countries that made this law freed themselves from it, but we still cling onto it by claiming so-called morals and culture. Even our neighbour India transformed this law. Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi is this landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalisation of homosexual acts involving consenting adults, in the jurisdiction of the Delhi High court.

Madmen see others as madmen too. Accordingly, certain persons suffering from the diseases of traditional morality, decency and religion see the minority sexual community as patients. In the late 1980s, US psychologists decided after a serious study that other than the males and females, nature has a third sexual kind, and that it is in no way a mental condition. Compared to that, where do we stand? Until then considered an offence under the penal code, homosexuality was made a crime in the 1990s.

How did our hero die? Unable to stand harassment by society, he took cyanide in 1954, at the age of 41 years. Can the sufferings undergone by these Alan Turings be healed by a posthumous pardon? Their souls might be looking at us sarcastically and ask the question, “sinners, do you understand it at least now?”

See Alan Turing’s story here

Mexico drug lord 'El Chapo' pleads not guilty in U.S. court

Mexico's top drug lord Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman is escorted as he arrives at Long Island MacArthur airport in New York, U.S., January 19, 2017, after his extradition from Mexico. U.S. officials/Handout via REUTERS--A slide is seen before a press conference regarding the extradition and arraignment of Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, New York, U.S. January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney

Police stand guard outside the courthouse where Mexico's top drug lord Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman was brought in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, New York, U.S. January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney--Police guard the courthouse where Mexico's top drug lord Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman was brought in the Brooklyn borough of New York City, New York, U.S. January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Joe Penney

By Nate Raymond and Jonathan Allen - Sat Jan 21, 2017

Drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman appeared in a U.S. court on Friday after his surprise extradition from Mexico and pleaded not guilty to charges that he ran the world's largest drug-trafficking organisation during a decades-long criminal career.

El Chapo (Spanish for "Shorty"), who twice made dramatic escapes from Mexican prisons and was one of the world's most wanted drug lords, was accompanied by two lawyers during the appearance in federal court in Brooklyn.

The extradition came on the eve of Donald Trump's inauguration, a coincidence some officials said was an olive branch to the incoming U.S. president who declared he would kick Guzman's "ass" on taking office.

The Mexican attorney general's office rejected claims the move was related to Trump's swearing-in, noting that Guzman faces 10 pending cases in Mexico following his U.S. sentence.

Guzman, 59, wore a blue jump suit and had no visible expression on his face as he entered the courtroom and listened to questions from a judge. He did not appear to be wearing handcuffs. Guzman's lawyers declined to comment to reporters.

After U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein asked Guzman if he understood the charges against him, Guzman responded through a Spanish interpreter, "Well, I didn't know until now."

An additional hearing was scheduled for Feb. 3.

The indictment in Brooklyn against him, with 17 criminal counts, carries a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison, Robert Capers, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said at a news conference earlier in the day.

U.S. prosecutors have more than 40 witnesses ready to testify against Guzman, Capers told reporters, adding that the eventual trial will likely last "many" weeks.

Leading the Sinaloa cartel, Guzman oversaw perhaps the world's largest transnational cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine smuggling operation, playing a key role in Mexico's decade-long drug war that has killed over 100,000 people.

Guzman arrived in a small jet at Long Island's MacArthur Airport after nightfall on Thursday from a prison in Juarez in the northern state of Chihuahua, where his cartel rules.

A few hours earlier, Guzman, who stands 5 feet six inches, was bundled out of the Mexican cell block with his hands cuffed above his bowed head, Mexican television footage showed.

(Writing by Alexandra Alper and David Ingram; Additional reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Jeffrey Benkoe and James Dalgleish)

Reasonable Excuses for seeking asylum in UK

Among defence recently submitted in support after the refusal of a large number of Sinhala asylum appeals on humanitarian grounds, is the ground of threat to life and liberty due to sexual orientation, an understandable fear of persecution.

by Victor Cherubim - Jan 21, 2017

( January 21, 2017, London, Sri Lanka Guardian) There has been a surge in the number of Sri Lankans of Sinhalese origin claiming asylum in the UK since the new government took office and a new era was ushered in Sri Lanka in 2015, setting out a path of major reform. Alleged and identified supporters of the previous “Rajapaksa government,” who arrived in UK under various “pretences” are now claiming asylum rights. These Sri Lankans say they fear persecution on return, perhaps rightly.

Why are apparently so many of Mahinda’s UPFA supporters in UK? Why are they claiming asylum knowing full well that they hardly have a cat in hell’s chance in today’s May’s Government in UK. Is it a strategic move of the JO to export them abroad to bide time. Whatever the motive, it smacks of tactics similar to what the LTTE did with the Tamil diaspora years ago?

The extent to which these claimants have gone to produce documentary and verbal evidence of fear of reprisals is boundless. Defence Counsels in UK also are known to raise perhaps, unjustified fears in court in justification of their claims on return. Judgments by the European Court of Justice are often adduced, but it appears lack of sufficient justification of proof of ill-treatment on return “as failed asylum seekers”, is at issue. Most appeal refusals also have had difficulties of communication of nuisances in Sinhalese. Many if not most of these appellants are solely and exclusively dependent on seeking the interpretation service process offered. But, apparently is the Sinhalese, if not a coterie, who are heading the list of asylum appeals recently?

A shift in asylum seekers

Since the end of the ethnic war in 2009, the number of Sri Lankan Tamils seeking refugee status in UK has considerably reduced, but not altogether diminished. Before it was Tamil ethnicity and deterioration in the security situation which was the contributory factor and more so the compelling factor. Art.3 of the European Convention of Human Rights which stipulated “fear of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” on return was the main ground of appeal. Known widely as the embracing law on asylum appeal, with no exception or limitation on this right, it no longer is the choice or material ground of appeal after the end of war. But cases drag on over years due primarily to administrative reasons.

Who can claim asylum?

“To qualify as a refugee, the UK Border Agency (UKBA) an arm of the Home Office must consider that there is reason to fear persecution if returned to country of origin because of race, religion, nationality, social and/or political group or opinion”.

“Alternatively one may have other humanitarian or compelling reasons why there is need to stay in the UK, the denial of which may violate human rights under the European Convention of Human Rights”.

Treatment of gay, lesbian or bisexual refugees from many nations has been highlighted in the UK in recent months following revelations that one asylum seeker was asked “shockingly degrading questions,” by the authorities. Though authorities can question on sexual orientation, they are now restricted and cannot directly ask about sexual practices. According to a further ruling by the European Court of Justice, “those who claim asylum on ground that they are homosexual, need not have to undergo tests to prove it”.

Among defence recently submitted in support after the refusal of a large number of Sinhala asylum appeals on humanitarian grounds, is the ground of threat to life and liberty due to sexual orientation, an understandable fear of persecution.

Grounds of Appeal

An anomaly in Sri Lanka is that the British colonial established Civil Procedure Code on sexual orientation continues to remain on the statute book; arguably it has hardly been enforced in practice.

This 134 year old archaic law and its removal and amendment is one among other pre conditions demanded by the EU recently for reinstatement of the GSP Plus, which was withdrawn from Sri Lanka on 15 August 2010. As many now know, there is widespread dissent in attempts to decriminalise and recognise homosexuality. LGBTQ is in the news, so anything is possible?

Sri Lankan appeals understandably are hesitant to contest this ground. Trans-gender issues however have all sprung up. The main ground in asylum appeals from some but not all Sinhala applicants is on the basis of “breakdown of marital relations while estranged wife and children” remain in Sri Lanka. The espoused fear of persecution on return of the appellant could arouse severe ostracism and family rejection on this ground. The question of Home Office making public use of the determination and of whatever information given in support of the claim is at risk, as documents are passed on to Sri Lanka, unless, a Tribunal makes orders prohibiting disclosure.

General right of appeal

The general right of appeal is for either the appellant or for the Home Office for a judicial review.

“In cases where an applicant for any asylum or leave to enter or remain has been refused and the Appellate Authority has upheld that decision, this information can usually be considered to be in the public domain, unless an anonymity order has been issued.”

It is common knowledge that the Court of Appeal/Tribunal hearing these cases in UK is mostly guided and decisions guided by the most recent UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Country Report on Sri Lanka, It is here noted that the last update is 31 March 2013. This has undoubtedly been a double edged sword for most asylum appeal applicants.

Besides, judgment is hardly delivered on basis of hearsay evidence on ground of breakdown of marital relations of applicant. What matters is what the learned Appeal Judge construes as the outcome, if the appellant was returned to Sri Lanka on verification of what is the stated Government of Sri Lanka position on safety of return as seen on record by the Home Office and verified by the Country Report. There are no juries in asylum appeals.

Civil lawyers arguing cases for Sri Lanka Sinhala gay asylum claimants are at a great disadvantage.

Many cases get dismissed and appellants returned without guarantees and perhaps to an uncertain future.

What nobody talks about is the mental pain and suffering of the appellants marriage partner and/or family back in Sri Lanka who have lost a husband or a father through the asylum process in UK.

The diversity of sexual orientation

Though appreciating the diversity of sexual orientation as a ground for appeal in the UK asylum process, there is also a sub conscious fear among the British judiciary, Home Office authorities and even Counsel that unscrupulous applicants could well use this excuse as a modus operandi to remain as economic migrants in UK, which is perhaps, a contentious issue, but a deciding factor.