Thursday, March 29, 2018

Fire in cells of Venezuelan police station kills 78

Officers fire teargas at relatives of detainees as families demand more information

Relatives mourn as fire in cells of Venezuelan police station kills 78 – video

Peter Beaumontand agencies-Thu 29 Mar 2018 14.53 BST

Distraught families are demanding information from the Venezuelan authorities about how at least 78 people died in a fire while they were locked in police cells.

Police fired teargas as relatives clashed with police outside the facility in Valencia, Carabobo state, after local officials would confirm only that there had been deaths in Wednesday’s fire.

The fire appears to have broken out during a disturbance at the holding – reportedly designed to hold a maximum of 60 prisoners – with gunfire heard during the riot.

“I don’t know if my son is dead or alive,” Aida Parra, the mother of one of the prisoners inside the facility, told the Spanish news agency EFE. “They haven’t told me anything.”

The United Nations human rights office said it was appalled by the fire and called on authorities in Venezuela to carry out a speedy investigation and to provide reparations to victims’ families.
Juan Miguel Matheus, a deputy in the country’s national assembly, said the information he had was that 68 men and 10 women had died.

Speaking to a local newspaper, Mattheus also criticised the authorities. “Until now they have not released a list of the dead. There are bodies which have not been able to be identified because the bodies are so charred.”

“They have told us nothing. Instead the police have treated us like dogs,” said Lissette Mendoza, mother of 19-year old detainee Yorman Salazar. “He was being held for robbery, but they should not be allowed to take his life as if he were a dog,” she said.

Venezuela’s attorney general, Tarek William Saab, said late on Wednesday that 68 people had died in the fire, nearly all of them prisoners. He said four prosecutors would investigate the circumstances.
A Window to Freedom, a non-profit group that monitors conditions in Venezuela’s jails and prisons, said preliminary but unconfirmed information indicated that a riot began when a detainee shot an officer in the leg.

Shortly after, a fire broke out and grew quickly as the flames spread to mattresses in the cells, it said. Rescuers apparently had to break a hole through a prison wall to free some of the prisoners.

The fire is the latest incident to hit Venezuela’s overcrowded and decrepit prison system in a politically and economically challenged country where violent crime has become endemic.

It was one of the worst jail disasters in the country, where human rights groups complain about poor conditions for inmates. A fire at a prison in the western state of Zulia killed more than 100 prisoners in 1994.

The state of Venezuela’s jail system has been described by Human Rights Watch alleging that “corruption, weak security, deteriorating infrastructure, overcrowding, insufficient staffing, and poorly trained guards [have] allow[ed] armed gangs to exercise effective control over inmate populations within prisons.

“The Venezuelan Observatory of Prisons, a human rights group, reported that 6,663 people died in prisons between 1999 and 2015. As of July, average overcrowding of 210 percent plagued Venezuelan prisons.”

In March, four inmates and a prison guard died when detainees and security officers clashed at the Fénix Penitentiary Center in Lara State. Fifty-two detainees, four prison guards and the prison director were injured. The press has reported other violent prison incidents in 2016, in which at least 20 more people died.

People waiting outside the station on Wednesday said dozens of detainees had been kept in squalid conditions and they feared the worst for their loved ones.

Carlos Nieto Palma, the director of A Window to Freedom, said officials should be held accountable for failing to address poor conditions in police station jails. He said overcrowding had become common throughout Venezuela, with detainees being kept long past customary brief holding periods before being released or sent to larger jails to await trial.

“It’s grave and alarming,” he said. “What happened today in Carabobo is a sign of that.”

Juan Miguel Matheus, an opposition politician, demanded the pro-government leader of Carabobo state inform relatives about what happened. “The desperation of relatives should not be played with,” he said.

Trump’s Latest Pick — Bolton

Bolton nominally falls into the realist camp, but he inhabits the extreme end of it – he is a hard-liner and a hawk. He reflexively distrusts diplomacy to settle disputes.

by Steven Feldstein-Mar 28, 2018

( March 28, 2018, Boston, Sri Lanka Guardian) President Donald Trump’s announcement on March 22 that John Bolton would become the new national security adviser took the policy world – and Bolton – by surprise.

Bolton’s hawkish views are well known. During his run as a Fox News commentator, he advocated for preemptively bombing North Korea and at other times called for regime change in Iran.

As a junior aide at the State Department, I occasionally intersected with Bolton while he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations between 2005 to 2006. His brusque manner and deep mistrust of the U.N. were eye opening. I recall one meeting in which he claimed that a newly formed U.N. reform panel represented a “conspiracy” that he would uncover in due time. He never followed up with any further information to the best of my knowledge.

Throughout his tenure, he had a testy relationship with then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and many others at the State Department. After his appointment expired, I recall that most of his colleagues breathed a sigh of relief upon his exit.

Now as a scholar of foreign policy and international relations, I find that Bolton’s promotion to one of the most important jobs in the Trump administration raises critical questions: What is Bolton’s worldview? And is his aggressive posturing on Iran and North Korea hyperbole, or do they represent a real template for new policies? If Bolton’s policy decisions start to match his rhetoric, then the possibility of war may become very real.

Bolton’s hard-line perspective

U.S. foreign policy experts tends to fall into three camps: realist, liberalist and idealist. Realists view international relations as a competition for power among self-interested states. Liberalists contend that economic integration between nations, international institutions and democracy can overcome selfish state behavior. Idealists believe that international politics are shaped by collective ideas, values and principles.

Bolton nominally falls into the realist camp, but he inhabits the extreme end of it – he is a hard-liner and a hawk. He reflexively distrusts diplomacy to settle disputes. He believes that force and coercion are preferable means to advance U.S. interests. Bolton views international relations as a series of “nasty, brutish and short” struggles where military force is the deciding factor.

Throughout his career, he has advocated for force over negotiation, often with disastrous results. While serving as the undersecretary for arms control in the Bush administration, for example, he played a key role in shaping intelligence related to alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He not only declared his confidence that such weapons existed, but publicly warned, “If Saddam Hussein does not co-operate we have made it clear this is the last chance for him.”

As history shows, Saddam did not possess biological or chemical weapons, but the United States went to war against Iraq anyway. Bolton’s more recent saber-rattling against Iran echoes the past. He has called for Trump to “tear up” the Iran nuclear agreement, and to use bombs and missiles to accomplish U.S. security objectives. As Bolton intones: “Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.”

What does Bolton want?

Bolton believes that force alone will ensure continued U.S. dominance in the international system. He sees diplomacy and negotiations, particularly through the U.N., as a tactic for weak states to tie the hands of stronger states. He has repeatedly claimed that negotiations, such as over North Korea’s nuclear program, are a waste of time, and that treaties are “essentially only political documents.”

At his core, I believe Bolton is concerned with how to maintain U.S. primacy in the face of relative decline. He recognizes the likelihood that the Chinese economy will soon become the largest in the world, and that economic power is a key component of military strength. Therefore, Bolton maintains that the best way to secure American power is to confront revisionist states – countries such as North Korea and Iran which seek to overturn the status quo order – through military strength, and to knock back challenges from potential peer competitors, like China.

Unlike a classic realpolitik strategist like Henry Kissinger, diplomatic subtlety is not part of Bolton’s playbook. If collateral damage accrues, say millions of civilian casualties from a conflict on the Korean peninsula, I’d expect Bolton would likely say that is the cost of doing business.

How will Bolton manage the bureaucracy?

Many commentators have extolled Bolton’s ability to co-opt the bureaucracy in support of his objectives. That case may be overstated.

It is true that through determination and bullying Bolton sometimes prevailed during heated interagency battles. But his overall record was underwhelming. Bolton’s reputation was so divisive that both Democratic and Republican senators joined together to block his confirmation as ambassador to the U.N. in 2005. Eventually, the Bush administration resorted to a 17-month recess appointment to get him up to New York.

While working as a diplomat in the U.N., he notably feuded with his counterparts, particularly Secretary General Kofi Annan. Other countries blithely ignored – if not ridiculed – his agenda, leaving him with a sparse list of accomplishments. Said one Western ambassador: “Instinctively, he’s a bully. He has succeeded in putting almost everyone’s back up, even among America’s closest allies.”

In fact, Bolton’s most lasting U.N. legacy may have been his famous assertion: “The Secretariat building in New York has 38 stories. If it lost 10 stories today, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

Bolton’s State Department colleagues also found him insufferable, according to The Washington Post. He routinely conflicted with Secretary Rice, and as he approached the end of his tenure, his polarizing attitude had shorn him of allies. Rather than wield unrestrained influence, internal opponents often stymied his priorities. As someone notoriously difficult to work with – including serious allegations of workplace abuse – Bolton will may encounter substantial friction once he gets in place as national security adviser.

Drumbeat of war?

Some experts argue that under Bolton’s leadership, going to war is not inevitable, but several factors give pause. Many senior diplomats and military leaders – the checks and balances – have left the administration. There are simply fewer experienced people left in the room to challenge Bolton’s ideas.

In addition, it remains to be seen how Trump’s own impulsiveness, as recently evidenced by his sudden announcement of trade tariffs, may affect Bolton. It may turn into what academics call the “risky shift phenomenon.” This occurs when individuals in group settings are reluctant to appear overly cautious. Instead, the most reckless member dominates such groups, causing individuals to take chances they would not otherwise carry forward. Trump’s tendency to take audacious gambles, combined with Bolton’s predisposition to use military force, is what is causing many to fear a heightened risk of international confrontation.

Appointing a hard-line figure like Bolton signals that Trump is ready to embrace a much more aggressive and volatile foreign policy. The next few months will bring key decisions on Iran and North Korea. Bolton’s leadership will go a long way towards determining whether the U.S. finds itself yet again on the brink of war.

Steven Feldstein, Frank and Bethine Church Chair of Public Affairs & Associate Professor, School of Public Service, Boise State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

We finally got an answer about whether Trump knew about the Stormy Daniels payment

This post has been updated.

By Aaron Blake March 29 at 9:06 AM

The White House and Michael Cohen have spent weeks declining to answer a basic question: Was President Trump involved in the $130,000 hush-money payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels?

Well, we finally have a denial. But while it might insulate Trump from the scandal, experts say it could also undermine the nondisclosure agreement that Daniels signed preventing her from disclosing the alleged affair.

David Schwartz is a lawyer and spokesman for Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer who has said he “facilitated” the Daniels payment. On CNN Wednesday night, Schwartz seemed to categorically deny that Trump was involved — or at least that he had knowledge of the payment on the front end. Here's the exchange:

BURNETT: Okay. It seems like a simple question, and you are Cohen's spokesperson in this. So, can you say unequivocally that the president was never in any way aware of the $130,000 of the agreement itself?

SCHWARTZ: The president was not aware of the agreement. At least Michael Cohen never told him about the agreement. I can tell you that. And you asked a whole bunch of questions, so let me cover that.

BURNETT: Yes.

SCHWARTZ: So, you asked about 12 days before —

BURNETT: Not aware of the agreement. How about the money?

SCHWARTZ: He was not aware of any of it.

Schwartz extended the denial further Thursday morning on NBC News, adding that Trump "100 percent” did not reimburse Cohen. That would seem to foreclose the possibility that Cohen made the arrangement without Trump's knowledge but later billed him for it without explaining the charge. (The Wall Street Journal, for what it's worth, has reported that Cohen at one point groused to others that Trump hadn't reimbursed him for the payment.)

But why wait all this time to deny Trump was involved? Cohen's initial statement on all of this ruled out possible involvement from the Trump Organization and the 2016 campaign, but it conspicuously didn't address Trump personally. And the White House has repeatedly brushed aside this question.

As Stormy Daniels continues to speak out about her alleged affair with President Trump, he is staying largely silent. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

There are pros and cons to saying Trump wasn't involved. Part of the reason for the delay could be that it might undermine the nondisclosure agreement Daniels signed. Schwartz argued on CNN that the NDA would still be valid because Trump was merely a third-party beneficiary, but some experts are dubious.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti said that, the way the NDA was written, there “was no deal without [Trump's] knowledge or consent.”

“The contact binds 'DD' (Trump) in many ways and grants enforcement remedies solely to Trump,” Mariotti said. He added: “Cohen could argue that when the contact lists various rights and responsibilities for 'DD,' it really means the LLC, but I doubt a judge would buy that. The contract appears to bind DD and grant him rights.”

David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, said Schwartz's admission was “amazing” and could even lead to legal jeopardy. “If true, that opens up Cohen and anyone else involved in soliciting the agreement to fraud charges because the agreement certainly purports to make commitments, beyond the money, that only Trump could make,” Super said.

University of Minnesota law school professor Carol Chomsky said the exclusion of Trump “does undercut the validity of the agreement, because it creates ambiguity in what was intended and may demonstrate some misrepresentation in the formulation of the agreement.”

But former top Justice Department official Harry Litman said that, while the admission might complicate the NDA somewhat, the biggest takeaway is that it protects Trump.

“It’s also the expected and smartest — in the sense of most-insulated — tack: Cohen the Mr. Fix-it who knows what the president needs and gets it for him without even putting him in the potentially vulnerable position of having to discuss it,” Litman said.

Perhaps the White House simply wanted to keep quiet and hope that this whole thing would go away (wrong!). And maybe Cohen and Schwartz have decided the NDA may be a lost cause — given that Daniels is now flouting it anyway — and that it's more important to insulate Trump.

It's worth emphasizing here, though, that the White House still hasn't weighed in. The person who is denying Trump was involved is a lawyer for a party to an agreement who says Trump wasn't involved in that agreement. Schwartz has no responsibility or accountability to the White House here. And even he seems to suggest it's possible Trump might have learned of the agreement without Cohen telling him. “The president was not aware of the agreement,” he said, before clarifying: “At least Michael Cohen never told him about the agreement.”

Which means it's still worth getting the White House's word on this. Don't hold your breath.

Burma: Ex-child soldier sentenced to jail, hard labour for talking to press

2017-01-15T020949Z_1569486880_RC18EF7AC0B0_RTRMADP_3_MYANMAR-WA-LEADERSHIP-940x580 — United Wa State Army (UWSA) soldiers march during a display for the media in Pansang, Wa territory in north east Burma Oct 4, 2016. Source: Reuters/Soe Zeya Tun

29th March 2018

A BURMESE court on Wednesday sentenced a former child soldier to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour under a colonial era law that critics say is being used to quash freedom of expression.

Aung Ko Htwe was arrested and charged under Section 505 (b) of the country’s Penal Code last August after telling the media how he was kidnapped by the Burmese military in 2005 when he was a teenager.

Speaking to reporters outside the court following his sentencing, the 26-year-old criticised his conviction.

“My rights have been violated. We have no rule of law in this country,” he said as he was taken away in shackles by police.

SEE ALSO: Burmese students expelled en masse for protests over education budget

Section 505(b) of the Penal Code is a vaguely-worded law that makes it an offence to “cause fear or alarm to the public” and is often used to prosecute activists.

Speaking to Anadolu Agency, Htwe’s sister Nay Zar Tun said: “I have no idea what is wrong in telling how he became child soldier.”

“The military already admitted that they had used child soldiers,” she said. “It seems they are still using child soldiers.”

According to the Myanmar Times, he and three other child soldiers deserted Tatmadaw – another name for Burma’s military – in 2008. Aung Ko Htwe’s sister said, her brother was soon arrested for accidentally murdering a motorcyclist during an effort to escape from the military camp in restive Shan state. After a seven-month trial, he was sentenced to death.

SEE ALSO: Mounting calls for Burma to release jailed Reuters journalists

Under former-President U Thein Sein, his punishment was reduced to life-time imprisonment. Once his case was raised with current military leader Senior General Min Aung Hlaing with evidence that he was an under-age soldier, the sentence was reduced to 10 years. After serving 9 years in jail, he was released in July last year, she said.

‏ @aapp_burma

Yesterday's sentencing of former child soldier Aung Ko Htwe is an open attack on freedom of expression and directly contradicts #Burma's commitment to end child military recruitment. AAPP condemns the decision and calls for his immediate release. #Myanmar

9:09 pm - 28 Mar 2018

Aung Ko Htwe also faces additional charges under the Union Seal Law for a protest in which he stepped on a copy of the Constitution during his hearing.

The law includes a provision against desecration of the Union seal. If found guilty, Aung Ko Htwe faces a maximum sentence of three years in prison.

Human rights organisation Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) condemned Aung Ko Htwe’s sentence and called for his immediate release.

This is “an open attack on freedom of expression,” the group said on Twitter. “[His conviction] directly contradicts Burma’s commitment to end child military recruitment.”

Man has 'world's worst' super-gonorrhoea

By James Gallagher-28 March 2018

A man in the UK has caught the world's "worst-ever" case of super-gonorrhoea.

He had a regular partner in the UK, but picked up the superbug after a sexual encounter with a woman in South East Asia.

Public Health England says it is the first time the infection cannot be cured with first choice antibiotics.

Health officials are now tracing any other sexual partners of the man, who has not been identified, in an attempt to contain the infection's spread.

He picked up the infection earlier in the year.

The main antibiotic treatment - a combination of azithromycin and ceftriaxone - has failed to treat the disease.

Dr Gwenda Hughes, from Public Health England, said: "This is the first time a case has displayed such high-level resistance to both of these drugs and to most other commonly used antibiotics."

Discussions with the World Health Organization and the European Centres for Disease Control agree this is a world first.

What is gonorrhoea?

The disease is caused by the bacterium called Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

The infection is spread by unprotected vaginal, oral and anal sex.

Of those infected, about one in 10 heterosexual men and more than three-quarters of women, and gay men, have no easily recognisable symptoms.

But symptoms can include a thick green or yellow discharge from sexual organs, pain when urinating and bleeding between periods.

Untreated infection can lead to infertility, pelvic inflammatory disease and can be passed on to a child during pregnancy.

Analysis of the man's infection suggests one last antibiotic could work. He is currently being treated and doctors will see if it has been successful next month.

So far no other cases - including in the British partner - have been discovered, but the investigation is still under way.

Dr Hughes added: "We are following up this case to ensure that the infection was effectively treated with other options and the risk of any onward transmission is minimised."

Doctors have long been warning this could happen.

In 2015, there was an outbreak of azithromycin-resistant gonorrhoea centred on Leeds.

The fear is the bug could eventually become untreatable by any antibiotic.

You may also be interested in:

Dr Olwen Williams, the president of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV said: "The emergence of this new strain of highly resistant gonorrhoea is of huge concern and is a significant development.

"We are concerned that the problem will worsen due to the dramatic cuts that have been delivered to the public health budget.

"Worryingly this has left sexual health services at 'tipping point', with clinic closures coming at the worst possible time."

Follow James on Twitter.