Muslim Brotherhood blacklist: Trump's push threatens Muslim Americans

Some say the designation may 'jeopardise' the Muslim community and boost Islamophobia


Muslim activists protest outside the Trump Hotel in Washington during the Women's March in January (MEE/Ali Harb)

By Ali Harb-30 April 2019

As Donald Trump works to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist group, advocates in the United States say such a move will have serious implications for Muslim-American communities across the country.

Some say the designation may "jeopardise" the rights of Muslim Americans and boost Islamophobia.

It would also signal "another effort to call Muslims out and associate them with political violence", said Sally Howell, a professor of Arab American studies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.

The US president is working to blacklist the Muslim Brotherhood, a transnational Islamist group, the New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing administration officials, including a White House spokeswoman.

The designation would debilitate the group's ability to operate internationally and open up individuals in the US who are linked to the Islamist movement to prosecution on various charges, including providing material support to a terrorist group.

'All it does is stigmatise and single out the Muslim community in a strange, unnatural, ahistorical way'

- Sally Howell, University of Michigan-Dearborn

Already, Muslim-American organisations and politicians are often called out for purported links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Blacklisting the movement would open up these groups to greater scrutiny from the federal government and legitimise hate against Muslims, Howell said.

"To put this label 'terrorist organisation' on a group that has a very complex history serves no purpose," said Howell, who has studied the crackdown on Muslim-American charities and civil rights groups after 9/11.

"All it does is stigmatise and single out the Muslim community in a strange, unnatural, ahistorical way that jeopardises many, many Muslim-American institutions," she told Middle East Eye. 

Groups targeted

One such institution may be the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), which describes itself as the country's "largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation".

Right-wing commentators and politicians have long accused CAIR of being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Despite having dozens of chapters across the US and regularly hosting officials and cooperating with mainstream organisations, anti-Muslim activists have smeared politicians for associating with CAIR.

In 2014, the United Arab Emirates designated CAIR and the Muslim American Society, another US-based advocacy group, as terrorist organisations, placing the groups in the same category as al-Qaeda and Boko Haram militants.

'The idea of designating an entire section of society, and an entire transnational social movement, as a terrorist organisation doesn't even make sense'

- Abbas Barzegar, CAIR

That same year, the UAE and Saudi Arabia - themselves Islamic theocracies - also designated the Brotherhood as a terrorist group.

Abbas Barzegar, director of research at CAIR, said he is "confident" that the designation will not go through because the administration's legal justification for it "has no standing".

"The Muslim Brotherhood is simply a social movement. It is simply an 80-year-old network of organisations and ideas that are very different and very vast," Barzegar told MEE.

"And so, the idea of designating an entire section of society, and an entire transnational social movement, as a terrorist organisation doesn't even make sense."

Barzegar said he is counting on the Pentagon and State Department to be "smart enough" to reject the decision.

But if it does go through, he vowed that CAIR and other Muslim groups will push back against it.

"If and when something like this were to happen, the American-Muslim community is well-prepared through first and foremost its legal advocacy. We will defend American-Muslim rights - our institutions, our individuals, our families - against this kind of smear tactic," Barzegar said.

"So we will fight back. We will fight back in the media. We will fight back in politics. And we will defend ourselves according to the constitution of the United States."

The Brotherhood

Ultimately, a move by the White House to blacklist the Brotherhood would further align Trump's policies with those of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, which have all aggressively repressed the Islamist group.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Egyptian Islamic scholar Hassan al-Banna. Despite its transnational charter, its main branch remains in Egypt, where it was banned after the 2013 coup.

The organisation says it is committed to peaceful activism. It also has politically active offshoots participating in elections in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, Tunisia and Morocco.

In Egypt, the Brotherhood won the first freely held presidential election in the country's history in 2012. But President Mohamed Morsi was toppled a year later in a coup led by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who went on on to become president.

Egypt: How the Trump-Sisi alliance is fuelling repression

Read More »

Since then, Sisi has embarked on a widespread campaign of repression, jailing more than 50,000 activists, censoring all forms of criticism against his government, and executing hundreds of people.

During a recent visit to Washington, Sisi lobbied Trump to blacklist the Brotherhood, the NYT reported on Tuesday.

Indeed, Trump's push to blacklist the Brotherhood echoes his previously expressed admiration of the Egyptian president and depiction of political Islam as inherently violent.

The cozy relationship between the two leaders also is fuelling human rights abuses in the North African country, experts told MEE last month.

At the time, Dalia Fahmy, a political science professor at Long Island University, said that Trump is actively supporting repression in Egypt.

"I actually don't think Trump is turning a blind eye; I think what Trump is doing is actually supporting it," she told MEE.

Venezuela’s Guaidó calls for uprising against Maduro

Lindsey Hilsum-30 Apr 2019International Editor

“This is the moment” – the words of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido early this morning in Caracas, flanked by military defectors. He called his supporters out on to the streets and asked for the rest of the Army to join him to oust President Nicolas Maduro. But after violent scenes, in which armoured vehicles hit protestors, the Maduro government still seems to be in charge.

Violence spills over in heart of Caracas as thousands answer Guaidó's call

Masked protesters bloodied from rubber bullets and one person hit by armored tank as clashes rock Venezuelan capital

• Venezuela: clashes after Guaido urges uprising – live

A masked opposition protester in Caracas. As the afternoon wore on, protesters battled security forces, throwing stones and facing rubber bullets in response. Photograph: Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters

Patricia Torres in Caracas and Emma Graham-Harrison-Tue 30 Apr 2019 21.15 BST

The first bloodshed was captured on camera at about midday, when an armoured vehicle belonging to Venezuelan security forces accelerated towards protesters scattering along a highway, bounced over the median – and then crumpled at least one person under its wheels.

Violence seemed inevitable on a day when Venezuela’s opposition leader Juan Guaidó attempted to launch a military uprising and popular protests in the name of democracy and freedom, to topple the government of Nicolás Maduro.

The Venezuelan government has shot at protesters before, when dealing with less direct challenges to its authority.

But despite the looming threat, thousands answered Guaido’s call, joining a steady march down the long Avenue of Francisco Miranda that snakes through the capital, waving flags or wearing the national colours.

Francisco Betancourt and Elizabeth Saavedra said they had told their son that it would be dangerous in Caracas on Tuesday – but then explained why they wanted him to join the protests with them.

“We wanted him to be here so that he could tell his children he took part in changing Venezuela, the day that it was transformed from a nightmare to a dream,” Betancourt said. An hour later they were walking through the heart of Caracas, wearing red, yellow and blue.

Betancourt added: “We hope that in the next 48 hours, Venezuela can finally offer a better future for our son and his children. We know it will be difficult to create a different Venezuela, but it’s worth it.”

As the afternoon dragged on, masked protesters began battles with security forces, throwing stones and facing rubber bullets in response. At least one bus was set on fire.We are the resistance in the streets. We are dying of hunger, our family members are leaving, they are dying

Victor Zabala

Victor Zabala, 25, showed his back pockmarked with bruising and blood from the pellets. “We are the resistance in the streets,” he said, vowing to stay at the protests. “We are dying of hunger, our family members are leaving, they are dying.”

Despite the violence, and a shortage of transport – the metro was closed, and public buses appeared to have vanished from the streets – a large crowd gathered in the central Plaza Altamira to hear Guaidó address supporters.

The speech offered a moment of calm. Heavily armed defectors from the national guard stood on their cars, watching Guaidó as he promised non-violent change through “Operation Freedom”.

The country had woken to Guaido’s video calling for an uprising, filmed in the pre-dawn light, and flanked by his political mentor, Leopoldo López who had been sprung from house arrest.

By the time the sun had full risen, people in opposition strongholds were leaning out of their windows banging pans in a traditional cazerolazo protest as word spread of Guiadó’s last-ditch gamble on change.

There were fewer cars than usual on the streets, with schools and many businesses closed, but supporters headed towards the centre of town on foot and on motorbikes, in response to the summons.

National Guard armoured vehicle drives into protesters in Venezuela – video

Protests soon spread to other cities, and online opposition supporters cheered a video from eastern Puerto Ordaz, which showed an armoured vehicle turn and lumber away from the crowd.

In Caracas, hundreds of pro-government protesters also answered a call for support on the streets, after Maduro promised “nerves of steel”, and his second in command Diosdado Cabello insisted Guaido’s attempt to seize power would fail.

Hundreds gathered at the presidential palace in Caracas, some of them brandishing firearms, Reuters reported. “It’s time to defend the revolution with arms,” said Valentin Santana, the leader of one of Venezuela’s many armed pro-government gangs known as colectivos, in a video posted on social media as he brandished an automatic rifle.

Senior military officers were less visible but apparently equally supportive. There was no mass military defection, no commanders pledged support to Guaido, and no major installations came under opposition control.

The unfolding challenge to Maduro’s rule was also followed closely by many of the millions of Venezuelans who have fled their country as hyperinflation sped up, and food and medicine shortages deepened in recent years.

Just beyond the border, in Cúcuta, Colombia, scores of military defectors loyal to Guaidó gathered early at the Simón Bolívar bridge to support the uprising.

They were unarmed and chose not to wear uniforms “out of respect to Colombia”, but said they were “awaiting orders from our president Juan Guaidó,”. However hours later, with no word from Caracas, the group had largely dissipated.

A steady trickle of Venezuelan military defectors have arrived to the Colombian border city of Cúcuta since February 23, when Guaidó attempted to bring humanitarian aid into Venezuela.

Colombian authorities estimate that up to 1000 of Venezuela’s security forces have now fled their posts, after the opposition urged them to and promised amnesty.

Many initially dreamed of crossing back into Venezuela as an army and assisting with overthrowing Maduro’s government, but instead found themselves waiting for a command that – so far – has still not come.

Additional reporting by Joe Parkin Daniels in Bogotá

Politics Of Humbug – Where Does The Buck Stop?

Accountability is the natural progression of responsibility. The word “accountability” has not been used often as the word “responsibility” for State actions

 

by Dr. Ruwantissa Abeyratne

Writing from Montreal-29/04/2019

 

I had no idea of the enormous and unquestionably helpful part that humbug plays in the social life of great peoples dwelling in a state of democratic freedom ~ Winston Churchill

 

Churchill’s statement could just as well apply to the political life of the people he is referring to. The dictionary definition of “humbug’ is “deceptive or false talk or behavior”. It shares a parallel dimension with “ambiguity”, but humbug is more insidious and, in the context which I am referring to in this article, invidious as well. Anyone who has been to law school and studied the basic tenets of administrative law would know that there is a distinction between accountability and responsibility. Another basic tenet taught in law 101 is that if a person in authority knows, or ought to have known of an incursion into the law or dereliction of duty, he should be held reprehensible.

 

Robert Gregory, in his article “Accountability and Responsibility” states: “[A]ccountability and responsibility are related ideas that are central to political, constitutional, and institutional arrangements in Western liberal democracies. However, political elites in non-democratic systems are generally not held accountable by citizens through such arrangements, and accountability is primarily a means of securing the compliance of state functionaries to the will of these elites”. Gregory goes on to say that “a concept that embodies a number of different types, with a common theme of answerability by an accountor to an accountee, usually—but not necessarily—in a hierarchical relationship designed to ensure compliance and control. Responsibility, on the other hand, speaks of the associated but different domain of individual moral choice, where often conflicting duties of obligation are experienced by those in official positions”. Thus, accountability is often accompanied by blame shifting, making it a contentious part of a political process.

 

Responsibility is an internal moral objective while accountability is the higher level of externality ascribed to a person that imposes or ought to impose the obligation and ensures that responsibility is carried out according to modalities set by the person accountable. In the author’s own profession and discipline of civil aviation, an example is that although different entities may be responsible for providing certain services such as aeronautical and meteorological information and radio communications, if something were to go wrong in the chain of responsibility and damage is caused, it is the State that is ultimately accountable.

 

In other words, if, in a privately run airport, a construction built in the premises damages an aircraft, the State cannot say “I did not know of its existence” or “I was not informed”.

 

There are several instances in history where State accountability has been clearly recognized. The right of individuals to hold States accountable for injuries or damage suffered is also supported by the International Law Commission. So is it with the United Nations Compensation Commission which was established in 1991 to go into claims of those who suffered from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The claims that the Commission handled amounted to more than 2.6 million and compensation sought under these claims was about $352 billion. Similarly, another Commission – the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission- which was established in 2000 to compensate entities and individuals who claimed that they had suffered from violations of international humanitarian law, addressed issues of State accountability and reparation. The Iran-US claims tribunal is another example where an individual successfully argued that Iran was liable for the acts of intimidation and harassment, he suffered under the hands of Iranian citizens which prompted the former to leave Iran, which resulted in significant property loss.

 

Imposing upon the State absolute accountability wherever an official is involved encourages that State to exercise greater control over its departments and representatives. However, the State cannot ipso facto be held liable for each and every act of its servants and liability could be imposed only for acts that can be imputed or attributed to the State. The concept of attribution is contained in Article IV of the International Law Commission’s Draft Rules of State Responsibility which provide that the act of any organ of State, if it exercises legislative, judicial or executive powers, can be attributed to the State, whatever that organ’s position in the State is and wherever in the hierarchy of that it is located.

 

President Truman had a sign on his desk which said: “The Buck Stops Here”. It can be argued that what he meant was that in his administration although many had responsibilities to perform tasks and carry out orders in their roles as moral agents, he would take accountability for their lapses and deficiencies because it was his duty to make sure that his staff were led by him to act on defined processes and disciples. Ethics activist Geoff Hunt has stated: “accountability is the readiness or preparedness to give an explanation or justification to relevant others (stakeholders) for one’s judgments, intentions, acts and omissions when appropriately called upon to do so. It is [also] a readiness to have one’s actions judged by others and, where appropriate, accept responsibility for errors, misjudgments and negligence and recognition for competence, conscientiousness, excellence and wisdom. It is a preparedness to change in the light of improved understanding gained from others”.

 

The clearly defined distinction between responsibility – where the person responsible for a task, function or to act under obligation has moral autonomy to act and decide - accountability- where the person accountable would, as one commentator put it: “ be held to external oversight, regulation, and mechanisms of punishment aimed to externally motivate responsive adjustment in order to maintain adherence with appropriate moral standards of action. Thomas Bevins in his essay Responsibility and Accountability says: “Unaccountable people are into excuses, blaming others, putting things off, doing the minimum, acting confused, and playing helpless. They pretend ignorance while hiding behind doors, computers, paperwork, jargon, and other people. They say things like “I didn’t know,” “I wasn’t there,” “I don’t have time,” “It’s not my job,” “That’s just the way I am,” “Nobody told me,” “It isn’t really hurting anyone,” and “I’m just following orders.” Unaccountable people are quick to complain and slow to act. In organizations, unaccountability is a highly contagious disease”.

 

Accountability is the natural progression of responsibility. The word “accountability” has not been used often as the word “responsibility” for State actions. However, there is a distinct link between enforcing accountability and the prevention of States from shirking accountability that flows from responsibility. In UN General Assembly Resolution 64/10 of 2010 which dealt with the Report on the Gaza Conflict between Israel and Palestine, one Whereas clause stresses “the need to ensure accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in order to prevent impunity, ensure justice, deter further violations and promote peace” and inter alia calls upon the Government of Israel to take all appropriate steps, within a period of three months, to undertake investigations that are independent, credible and in conformity with international standards into the serious violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law reported by the Fact- Finding Mission, towards ensuring accountability and justice” .

 

Accountability is intrinsically tied to the word “monitoring”. A person accountable should monitor those responsible for carrying out tasks and should ensure that the latter do not self regulate themselves.

A New Economic Vision for Africa: Today’s Investment & Tomorrow’s Growth

Key takeaways from the recent Foreign Policy investment roundtable, featuring President of the African Development Bank Akinwumi Adesina.

Read the key takeaways from the recent FP investment roundtable, featuring President of the African Development Bank Akinwumi Adesina.

APRIL 30, 2019, 12:37 PM

Africa’s burgeoning consumer market, young workforce, and vast natural resources position the continent for robust economic growth, promising big returns on investment, said Akinwumi Adesina, the president of the African Development Bank (AfDB), at a recent Foreign Policy roundtable in New York City. In a wide-ranging conversation on Africa’s growth potential, Adesina emphasized the untapped economic potential on the continent.

“Don’t look at this continent from the perspective of development,” he said to a select group of investors, executives, and experts on emerging markets and international development. “Look at this continent from the perspective of investment.”

Addressing the room during his opening remarks, Adesina called himself an “eternal optimist” about Africa’s prospects and reminded attendees that Africa is not a monolith and should not be treated as such. While noting the variation in growth rates across different countries and regions, Adesina attributed the continent’s rapid growth to a broad trend toward sounder macroeconomic and fiscal policy, greater political stability, and improvements in business infrastructure and investment.
Adesina directed attention to the region’s flourishing economic markets, which have a projected consumer expenditure of $2.5 trillion and a projected business-to-business expenditure of $3.5 trillion by 2030.

The AfDB has set an ambitious “High Five” agenda, focused on improving African integration, industrialization, food security, electrification, and quality of life. Over a two-hour conversation, these goals were acknowledged as the underpinnings of the success of African development and industrialization, particularly as Africa’s population continues to grow. By 2050, the continent’s population is predicted to be over 2.5 billion, according to the United Nations, more than the combined populations of China and India today.

Discussion focused on 10 key themes. Read the full report here.

Report produced by FP Analytics, the independent research division of The FP Group.

Lok Sabha Election Nearing Its Day Of Destiny

By S. Sivathasan –APRIL 27, 2019

S. Sivathasan

Advance and Retreat

Came April 2019 and Indian elections have entered the fiercest phase. Do or die may be an apt description, as stakes are of the highest import. On the results lie the continuing redemption of the country with an unwavering leadership or a relapse into a paralytic past only five years ago. Arraigned on either side is a disciplined party with a leader of world acclaim and an inchoate group of formations with no acknowledged leader. The latter struts about like headless chicken with only personal aspirations on display. With only a little more space left, victory for Modi and the BJP awaits only confirmation.

In this uneven contest Prime Minister Modi is well ahead and has adequately established his ascendancy. Ever since election fever started, fear is writ on the collective face of Congress and its cohorts. Some sixty years ago Nehru said “Elections bring out the worst in us”. What a tragic irony, Congress leader in Nehru genealogy spearheads in muck racking to bring forth the very worst in Indian politics. As of now as before also, BJP is at 3 digit and 300 plus seats, while Congress has slid to 2 digit and 90 minus. 

What are the high stakes? Nehru, the first Prime Minister was a leader of unimpeachable integrity. His intellect of the highest calibre made for the vision to modernize India. He brought forth a generation or two of bureaucrats and technocrats to move the country forward. In Foreign Affairs he had none to match. Leaders who followed were not of his caliber or spotless in character. A leader who steered through long delayed economic reforms in early nineties was Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. He was ably advised by the Finance Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh. India saw a sea change and had enabled Vajpaye to build a new India.

The Modi Surge

These highlights apart, the intervening years were lusterless in development and in securing foreign esteem. The most debilitating canker that afflicted the country after Nehru was the spread of corruption consequent to the unfailing loss of personal standards and of patriotism. Corruption clawed its way till it filled every pore of public life. The last five years of the UPA saw policy paralysis followed by comatose in administration, foreign affairs and nation’s growth. The polity lost its vitality and the will to fight the afflictions. A sense of despair and forlornness became all pervasive. Modi ridiculed that sense and questioned when an enemy comes into your house and beats you up, instead of hitting back and sending him away, why do you run to America to weep and to beg of that country to come and do your work?

Modi roadshow on April 25th, 2019 at Varanasi.

At this juncture Modi came as a tonic and a restorative to demoralized India in 2014. He changed the mindset of India and gave to their lives a sense of purpose. The state of vibration that he had in his own remarkable mind, he imparted to the polity. He and his lieutenants built up a cadre of leaders imbued with a fresh dynamism. He became not domineering but primus inter pares, leading not by edicts but by himself being spotless. The first casualty was corruption. High end swindles are shown the exit path. Others of no less consequence is a whole range of development initiatives that are transforming the face of India.

Before the approaching juggernaut, the opposition is in disarray. As the Congress becomes increasingly aware of un-winnability, it takes refuge in fake pronouncements. Its leader lost face when the Chief Justice told him where to stand. A few of the PM aspirants are yet to descend to firm ground. Some take refuge in the supposed failings of EVMs. Yet others refuse to see the direction from the strong gusts.

Changing Allegiance in States

Odisha has begun the rout of Biju Janata Dal (BJD)and welcome the advent of BJP. BJD took 20 of the 21 seats in 2014. Now it stands around 5. So is West Bengal on the verge of putting Trinamool Congress on the back burner. The latter which won 37 seats out of 42 at the last election may get 19 this time. Uttara Pradesh which gave 73 to NDA last time may stop at 60 this time. BJP and the NDA are opening their account in the South at this election. Tamil Nadu having given only 1 seat earlier may lavish the NDA with18 seats. Telugu Desam Party of Chandrababu Naidu is getting routed by YRC in Andhra Pradesh and will join a post poll coalition with NDA. Telengana is fully with the incumbent CM, which means nowhere unless it supports NDA in a post poll alliance. In Karnataka NDA will have the same comfortable alliance with NDA. For once, BJP will establish its toehold with a seat or two in Kerala. Communists, best at piggy backing specialism are dwindling from 3 states to a single state and single digit anonymity with a seat count of 6, only in Kerala. It is clear that the South together with the North-East zone will more than compensate for whatever minor loss in UP brought about by the SOS coalition along with the modicum of deviations that may be seen in the rest of the country.

Read More

Boeing wins shareholder confidence, prepares for key 737 MAX test flight

(FILES) In this file photo taken on March 28, 2019, Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 MAX aircraft are parked on the tarmac after being grounded at the Southern California Logistics Airport in Victorville, California. Source: Mark RALSTON / AFP

@ascorrespondent-29 Apr 2019

BOEING executives successfully beat back shareholder challenges to their authority on Monday as the company signaled it expects regulators to take a key step next week in the effort to get the 737 MAX back in the air following two deadly crashes.

The aerospace giant, under scrutiny following the crashes that killed 346 passengers and crew and grounded the MAX worldwide, won a vote of confidence from its investors, even as company management faced tough questions over plane design and the possible missteps in getting the aircraft to market.

Boeing expects the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct a test flight by the end of next week of the software fix the company developed for the flight system on the 737 MAX, a company spokesman said Monday. That would be a critical step in certifying the aircraft as flight-worthy.

SEE ALSO: Planes grounded but vital questions remain after latest Boeing 737 MAX 8 crash

However, an FAA spokesman said the agency had not released a date or time for the flight yet.

Amid reports of missteps in developing the newest version of its most popular aircraft, concerned shareholders used the annual meeting to seek greater transparency by proposing to make the chairman an independent director and to disclose lobbying activities and trade association memberships.

But those proposals garnered just 34 and 32 percent of the votes, respectively, somewhat better than similar measures last year, but still well below 50 percent.

The defeat of those motions no doubt was relief for Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg and other company brass but there was little sense of triumph at an annual meeting that included a moment of silence for the lives lost.

The company faces an uncertain timetable for bringing the grounded fleet back into service and tough questions over a new plane design that crashed twice, as well as potential costs from the crisis.

Muilenburg was asked during a press conference if he considered resigning.

“We’re focused on safety and I can tell you these accidents weigh heavily on us as a company,” he responded. “My clear intent is to continue to lead on the front of safety and quality and integrity.”

The company reported last week that the crisis had added $1 billion to costs in the year’s first quarter.

The 737 MAX has been grounded since mid-March following the crash of an Ethiopian Airlines flight and an earlier Lion Air crash, a crisis that has raised questions about whether the US giant sacrificed safety in its zeal to market a new narrow-body plane and compete with Airbus.

At the shareholders meeting, Muilenburg faced some pointed questions from shareholders but defended the design of the 737 MAX as “thorough” and “disciplined.”

Boeing has said both crashes involved erroneous information that came to the airplane through its anti-stall system, the Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System, which the software update is meant to address.

“We know that in both accidents there was a chain of events that occurred. One of the links was the activation of the MCAS system because of the data,” Muilenburg said at the media briefing. “We know we can break that link in the chain. The software update does that.”

SEE ALSO: Cockpit voice recorder of doomed Lion Air jet found

‘Chain of Events’

But Muilenburg repeatedly declined to characterize the MCAS system as a design flaw, saying there is more than one factor in such catastrophic accidents and that an investigation is continuing.

“It’s a chain of events. There is no singular item,” he said. “I think it’s really important that we all focus on letting the investigation process run its due course.”

US carriers such as American Airlines and Southwest Airlines are targeting August to resume flights on the 737 MAX in the expectation that Boeing will receive approval for its fix by that time.

Boeing has submitted some of the documentation to the FAA for the fix to the MCAS system, said a person familiar with the matter, adding that the application will be considered complete following a test flight in the coming days.

Boeing expects certification of the software fix some time after an FAA meeting with international regulators on May 23, the company spokesman said.

Fresh questions were raised over the weekend following revelations that prior to the Lion Air crash in October, Boeing deactivated a malfunction signal on 737 MAX planes owned by Southwest without telling the carrier, a feature that would detect a sensor error of the kind thought to have been a factor in both crashes.

SEE ALSO: Did Indonesia’s poor safety standards cause the crash of Lion Air JT610?

The FAA considered recommending grounding the planes at the time as they explored whether pilots flying the aircraft needed additional training about the alerts, according to a source familiar with the matter.

They decided against that — but never passed details of the discussions to higher-ranking officials in the FAA, the source said.

Shares of Boeing finished down 0.5 percent at US$379.05.

By John BIERS / Nova SAFO © Agence France-Presse

Trump tightens asylum rules, will make immigrants pay fees to seek humanitarian refuge

President Trump criticized U.S. immigration policies during a roundtable discussion on the economy and tax reform in Minnesota on April 15. (The Washington Post)

By Maria Sacchetti ,Felicia Sonmezand Nick Miroff-April 30 at 12:21 AM

President Trump ordered major changes to U.S. asylum policies in a White House memo released Monday night, including measures that would charge fees to those applying for humanitarian refuge in the United States.

Trump’s directive also calls for tightening asylum rules by banning anyone who crosses the border illegally from obtaining a work permit, and giving courts a 180-day limit to adjudicate asylum claims that now routinely take years to process because of a ballooning case backlog.

The order, announced in a presidential memorandum, comes as the president is seeking to mobilize his supporters with a focus on illegal immigration ahead of his 2020 reelection campaign.

“If the Democrats don’t give us the votes to change our weak, ineffective and dangerous Immigration Laws, we must fight hard for these votes in the 2020 Election!” the president wrote on Twitter after the White House published his order.

[ICE is holding $204 million in bond money, and some immigrants might never get it back]

The surge of migrants from Central America arriving at the U.S. southern border with Mexico has frustrated the Trump administration, which has been trying various methods to stem the flow, all of them thus far unsuccessful. The proposed changes to the asylum system aim to address one of the most confounding aspects of the surge: Families seeking safe passage using long-standing U.S. asylum protections.

President Trump directed officials to toughen rules for asylum seekers on April 30, including introducing fees for applications. (Reuters)

More than 103,000 migrants crossed the U.S.-Mexico border last month, the highest level in more than a decade. About 60 percent were Central American parents traveling with children who, upon arrival on U.S. soil, have the legal right to request refuge from persecution. 

Their numbers have overwhelmed the government’s ability to hold them in custody and quickly process their claims. Adults who arrive with children are typically assigned a court date and are released into the country, often reuniting with family members and taking jobs while their claims are pending.

Trump in recent weeks has increasingly mocked asylum seekers as fraudsters trying to game the system by making up stories about their hardships and fears of return to their native lands. Though homicide rates in Central America are among the highest in the world, many of those now arriving acknowledge they are fleeing poverty and hopelessness, which are not grounds for asylum protections.

The new White House measures, which call for new regulations in 90 days, follow one week after Trump issued a separate memorandum directing the secretaries of state and homeland security to find ways to combat visa overstays; it is another example of the administration trying to squeeze migration as it argues that the influx of undocumented people amounts to a national emergency.

“The extensive resources required to process and care for these individuals pulls U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel away from securing our Nation’s borders,” Trump’s latest memorandum reads.

The goal of the move, the document states, is “to strengthen asylum procedures to safeguard our system against rampant abuse of our asylum process.”

The memorandum directs Attorney General William P. Barr and acting homeland security secretary Kevin McAleenan to propose regulations within 90 days that would change various aspects of the way asylum cases are handled.

[Kevin McAleenan is taking over DHS. Will he be ‘tough’ enough for Trump?]

It calls for the United States to charge a fee for asylum applications, and it seeks to ensure that, “absent exceptional circumstances,” all asylum applications will be adjudicated within 180 days of filing. 

The moves would prohibit those who have entered the United States illegally from receiving provisional work permits until they have been approved for relief or protection from removal.

U.S. immigration law grants the attorney general the authority to impose fees on asylum applicants, but does not require such payments, and migrants seeking refuge to avoid deportation have not been charged.

David A. Martin, a former Homeland Security deputy general counsel who helped make changes to the asylum system in the 1990s, said that he had never heard of charging a fee to applicants and that it would be a “bad idea.”

Asylum seekers are fleeing for their lives — fearing torture or death in their home countries — and often cannot afford to survive without assistance in the United States, he said.

“Genuine asylum seekers by definition leave in the most urgent of circumstances,” Martin said. “As a group, they tend to be very short on resources. If you’re going to leave the possibility of refuge for people who legally qualify truly open, you wouldn’t impose a barrier of a fee.”

Charging a fee for asylum claims would put the United States in the clear minority. A study of 147 countries found that the “vast majority” did not charge a fee to apply for asylum, according to a December 2017 report by the Law Library of Congress’ Global Legal Research Center. Some nations charged migrants fees for temporary or permanent protection visas, though migrants could apply for waivers.

Proposing and implementing regulations typically takes months and requires a period of public comment. But Martin said the Trump administration could carry out the changes more quickly if it declares an urgent need.

In February, Trump declared a national emergency to free up federal funding to expand the wall on the nearly 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Several lawsuits are pending against the emergency, including one filed by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

Trump referred to the national emergency in the memo, saying the border situation is growing “increasingly severe.”

Federal law already requires that the government adjudicate asylum cases within 180 days, Martin noted. The requirement took effect in the 1990s and helped reduce asylum fraud and slash a large backlog of cases. Under that earlier change, the government also restricted work permits to migrants whose cases had been pending at least six months.

But almost a decade ago, Martin said, asylum cases started to pile up again and the government failed to invest enough in the immigration courts to keep up. Now the court backlog exceeds 850,000 cases, including asylum, with approximately 400 judges to handle them.

Clearing cases in six months is a good objective, Martin said, but “it’s not like a brand new idea.”

The White House memo directs the Department of Homeland Security to reassign personnel to improve screening of asylum applicants, “strengthen law enforcement” and enforce deportation orders from immigration courts.

Advocates for immigrants predicted that Trump's proposals would face swift legal challenges and a protracted battle in federal court.

But they said the presidential memo could cause chaos in the already overwhelmed immigration courts, intensifying pressure on immigration judges who would be subject to case-completion quotas.

Keren Zwick, associate director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center, said the court system is not equipped to handle cases as quickly as would be required. She worries that immigrants would not have fair hearings because they wouldn’t have time or money to gather evidence, find a lawyer, and support themselves while they await a hearing. 

“It’s not that asylum seekers don’t want other cases to be quickly adjudicated,” she said. “There’s a fine line between quick adjudication and being railroaded through the system. . . . It’s not like asylum seekers want to sit here in limbo forever,” she said. “But they also don’t want to be punished for seeking asylum.”

Woman accusing chief justice of harassment quits probe

FILE PHOTO: India's Supreme Court is pictured through a gate in New Delhi, India May 26, 2016. REUTERS/Anindito Mukherjee/File Photo

APRIL 30, 2019

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - A woman who accused the chief justice of India’s Supreme Court of sexual harassment said on Tuesday she would no longer participate in the proceedings of a judges’ panel investigating the case as she does not expect justice.

The 35-year-old junior court assistant, whose identity has not been publicly disclosed, wrote a letter to all Supreme Court judges along with an affidavit detailing her allegations against India’s most powerful judge Ranjan Gogoi.

He has denied the charges.

The woman’s complaint included allegations she and her family were victimised by authorities after she spurned the alleged advances of Gogoi.

In her statement on Tuesday, the woman said she was not allowed to have her representative present despite impaired hearing and anxiety. She also said there was no video or audio recording made, and she was not given a copy of her statements on the case from previous days.

“I found the atmosphere of the committee very frightening and I was very nervous because of being confronted and questioned by three Supreme Court Judges and without even the presence of my lawyer/support person,” she said.

“I felt I was not likely to get justice from this committee and so I am no longer participating in the 3-Judge Committee proceedings.”

No immediate comment was available from the Supreme Court.

Gogoi has said the accusations showed India’s judiciary was under threat from a wider conspiracy, without elaborating.

“There is some bigger force behind the woman,” he told a special hearing on Saturday.

Inquiry opens into NHS blood transfusions scandal

Some 4,500 people were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C up to 40 years ago
Patients were given blood products that had been brought over from the US in the 1970s and 1980s, at the height of the Aids epidemic © Alamy
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

30 Apr 2019

A public inquiry has opened in the UK into how 4,500 people were infected with HIV and Hepatitis C after receiving tainted blood transfusions from the government-run National Health Service up to 40 years ago.

In what has been labelled the worst treatment disaster in NHS history, the infections occurred after the patients were given blood products that had been brought over from the US in the 1970s and 1980s, at the height of the Aids epidemic. More than 2,000 of those infected are thought to have died.

Many of the victims had haemophilia, a condition that inhibits blood clotting, and requires injections of a blood-clotting protein called Factor VIII.

The Infected Blood inquiry will hear thousands of testimonies from individuals who were infected, as well as relatives and friends, and is expected to last up to three years.

 “Some [testimonies] are harrowing, some incredibly moving and some chillingly factual,” said Brian Langstaff, the former judge chairing the inquiry committee. He stressed that greater efforts were needed to improve detection of Hepatitis C.

Sir Brian reiterated the principles that would govern the inquiry, already set out at preliminary hearings. “Putting people at its heart; UK-wide; being as quick as reasonable thoroughness permits; paying proper respect to a person’s right to be heard; being as open and transparent as it is legally possible to be; being independent of government, and frightened of no one in the conclusions it draws,” he said.

The first victim to speak on Tuesday was Derek Martindale, a severe haemophiliac, who received an HIV diagnosis at a hospital in Leeds in 1985 after receiving Factor VIII.

Speaking with his son beside him, and with his wife looking on, he said: “I remember the date: it was Friday the 13th in September 1985. I was told I was HIV positive and I had a year to live and not to tell anyone, including my family and my parents.”

 Mr Martindale’s brother, also a haemophiliac, contracted HIV around the same time from a Factor VIII blood transfusion and died within five years. Mr Martindale said that the biggest regret of his life was not providing emotional support to his brother in the final months.

 “It’s the biggest regret of my life because he’s gone and I can’t do anything to make amends for that,” he said.

Mr Martindale has received an undisclosed amount of compensation. He said that when he received his first payment he had to sign a waiver stating that he would not seek or take action against the government for the HIV infection.

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.

“Everyone had to sign it otherwise nobody would get a payout,” he said.

On Monday, ahead of the hearing, Theresa May, prime minister, pledged up to an extra £29m per year in funding to support victims and their loved ones, increasing payments from £46m to £75m. The move was angrily dismissed by campaign organisations.

 Factor 8, an independent group representing haemophiliacs, described the government move as a “derisory offer” and a “blatant attempt of damage limitation”. It noted that the supposed increase would equate to less than £900 per person infected.

Separately, a fresh criminal investigation has been launched into the discovery that hundreds of patients had died after being given powerful painkillers at Gosport hospital in Hampshire.

The care provided to patients who died at the hospital between 1987 and 2001 would be the subject of a full police investigation, Kent Police said in a statement on Tuesday.