У Німеччині готують закон про нагляд за Федеральною службою розвідки

У Німеччині триває підготовка закону про заснування органу нагляду за діяльністю Федеральної служби розвідки (BND). До складу «контрольної ради» увійдуть чотири федеральних судді і два федеральних прокурори. Про це повідомили 27 вересня газета Süddeutsche Zeitung, медіакомпанії NDR і WDR з посиланням на проєкт закону, який перебуває в канцелярії федерального канцлера.

Таким чином буде виконана постанова Федерального конституційного суду Німеччини, інформує «Німецька хвиля». У травні цього року суд вирішив, що чинний закон про BND порушує таємницю листування і свободу ЗМІ. Конституційний суд зобов’язав законодавців переглянути і обмежити повноваження розвідки до кінця 2021 року.

Ідеться, зокрема, про телекомунікаційну розвідку. Співробітники BND опрацьовують великі обсяги даних без наявності підстав. Спецслужба щодня вивчає 154 тисячі ланцюжків повідомлень, приблизно 260 із них становлять інтерес для BND. Таке відстеження комунікаційних потоків в інтернеті без конкретного приводу суперечить Основному закону ФРН, вирішив Федеральний конституційний суд.

your ad here

Україна занепокоєна загостренням конфлікту між Вірменією та Азербайджаном – МЗС

МЗС України глибоко занепокоєне у зв’язку із загостренням конфлікту між Вірменією та Азербайджаном.

«Уважно вивчаємо обставини, що призвели до загострення. Закликаємо сторони повернутися до діалогу заради мирного врегулювання конфлікту. Співчуваємо родичам та близьким загиблих», – йдеться в повідомленні, опублікованому 27 вересня у твітері.

Зранку 27 вересня Вірменія і Азербайджан звинуватили один одного в ескалації насильства в Нагірному Карабасі – міжнародно визнаній частині Азербайджану, яка контролюється вірменськими сепаратистами.

Уряд Вірменії 27 вересня ухвалив рішення про запровадження воєнного стану і загальної мобілізації через активізацію бойових дій навколо Нагірного Карабаху.

Міністерство оборони Азербайджану опублікувало опівдні 27 вересня заяву, в якій ідеться, що підрозділи азербайджанської армії ведуть бої на кількох напрямках за важливі висоти, окуповані вірменськими військами.

З обох сторін повідомляють про жертви, в тому числі і серед мирного населення.

 

Конфлікт між Вірменією та Азербайджаном через Нагірний Карабах розпочався в 1988 році. До укладення угоди про припинення вогню Баку втратив контроль над Нагірним Карабахом і частиною прилеглих районів країни – всього до 20% міжнародно визнаної території.

Режим припинення вогню був встановлений у травні 1994 року. Мінська група ОБСЄ, створена в 1992 році, є посередником у налагодженні переговорів про мирне врегулювання конфлікту. До групи входять Азербайджан, Вірменія, Білорусь, Німеччина, Італія, Швеція, Фінляндія і Туреччина. Співголовами групи є Росія, Франція і США.

your ad here

Макрон: Лукашенку слід добровільно піти

Президент Франції Емманюель Макрон заявив, що Олександру Лукашенко слід добровільно залишити посаду. Про це Макрон заявив в інтервʼю газеті Le Journal du Dimanche, опублікованому 26 вересня.

Макрон вважає, що в Білорусі триває криза авторитарної влади, яка не здатна зрозуміти логіку демократії і намагається утриматися силою.

«Лукашенко має піти», – твердить Макрон. За словами французького лідера, 14 вересня в розмові з президентом Росії Володимиром Путіним він сказав, що «Росія має зіграти свою роль, і ця роль може бути позитивною, якщо вона підштовхне Лукашенка до поваги виборчого права і звільнення політичних в’язнів».

У Білорусі з 9 серпня тривають масові протести проти переобрання Олександра Лукашенка. Демонстранти вважають голосування сфальсифікованим і вимагають проведення чесних виборів та покарання силовиків, причетних до насильства.

Країни ЄС і США 23 вересня заявили, що відмовляються визнати Олександра Лукашенка президентом Білорусі, після його несподіваної інавгурації 23 вересня, яка викликала посилення масових протестів по всій країні.

Міністр закордонних справ України Дмитро Кулеба написав у твіттері, що «з огляду на хід виборчої кампанії у Білорусі та подальші події, сьогоднішня «інавгурація» О. Лукашенка не означає його визнання легітимним главою Білоруської держави».

 

 

your ad here

У збройному конфлікті Вірменії та Азербайджану сталося нове загострення, є жертви

Прем’єр-міністр Вірменії Нікол Пашинян уранці 27 вересня заявив у фейсбуці, що азербайджанські збройні сили розпочали наступ у напрямку Нагірного Карабаху – міжнародно визнаної частини Азербайджану, яка контролюється вірменськими сепаратистами.

За повідомленням помічника президента Азербайджану Хікмета Гаджиєва, близько 06:00 27 вересня збройні сили Вірменії порушили режим припинення вогню та інтенсивно обстріляли позиції азербайджанської армії на передовій.

З обох сторін повідомляють про жертви, в тому числі серед мирного населення.

Конфлікт між Вірменією та Азербайджаном через Нагірний Карабах розпочався в 1988 році. До укладення угоди про припинення вогню Баку втратив контроль над Нагірним Карабахом і частиною прилеглих районів країни – всього до 20% міжнародно визнаної території.

Режим припинення вогню був встановлений у травні 1994 року. Мінська група ОБСЄ, створена в 1992 році, є посередником у налагодженні переговорів про мирне врегулювання конфлікту. До групи входять Азербайджан, Вірменія, Білорусь, Німеччина, Італія, Швеція, Фінляндія і Туреччина. Співголовами групи є Росія, Франція і США.

Азербайджан не вважає самопроголошену Нагірно-Карабаської республіку стороною конфлікту і відмовляється вести з нею переговори.

your ad here

Barrett is a Committed Conservative Jurist, But How Will She Rule on Hot-Button Issues?

By nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday to replace the late liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Donald Trump unquestionably has chosen a committed conservative jurist.In announcing his choice in the White House Rose Garden, Trump described Barrett as “one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds,” a woman with sterling credentials and “unyielding loyalty to the Constitution.”A one-time protégé of Antonin Scalia, the late conservative icon on the high court who opposed abortion and gay marriage, Barrett, more than Trump’s two earlier Supreme Court appointments — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — is expected to push the bench much further to the right by creating a new 6-3 conservative-liberal split.That much most legal and political expert agree on.What no one can predict with any certainty is how she’ll vote on hot-button social and economic issues that are likely to come up before the court and determine the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans – including the fate of the Affordable Care Act that currently insures more than 20 million people amid the worst pandemic in over a century.During her confirmation hearing for a seat on a federal appeals court in 2017, Barrett faced two broad questions — whether she can separate her Catholic faith from her decision-making on the court, and whether she will she accept court precedent on abortion, LGBTQ rights and other issues that might be at odds with her understanding of the Constitution.Those questions will likely dominate her confirmation hearing, which reportedly could begin as soon as October 12, and shed light on how she might come down on key issues before the high court.Catholic faith versus jurisprudenceBarrett, 48, is a devout Catholic and the mother of seven children. Her Catholic faith came up during her 2017 confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. Democrats suggested that her religious beliefs on abortion and same-sex marriage would influence how she votes on those issues on the court.She sought to reassure the lawmakers that she would not allow her faith to affect her vote on the federal bench. “It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she said.She also said that she would follow all Supreme Court precedents “without fail” and would regard decisions such as Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortions, as binding precedent.Democrats were not persuaded.“I can’t tell you how many nominees have been before this panel . . . and virtually all say the same,” Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island said. “‘I’m following the precedent, I’m following the law, I’m following the Constitution. Don’t worry a thing about who I am. How I was raised. What my religion is. What my life experience has been. Put it all aside.’ I don’t believe that for a second.”Today many critics, including Senate Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and liberal advocacy groups, harbor similar doubts about her professed impartiality.“I think her viewpoint would ensure that people who share her ideas about religion would be dominant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a former president of the left-leaning American Constitution Center who now teaches law at Georgetown University.Her defenders say Barrett is committed to keeping her religious beliefs and jurisprudence separate.“There’s no doubt that Judge Barrett is conservative,” said Andrew Hessick, a University of North Carolina professor who endorsed Barrett’s appellate nomination in 2017. “I think it’s important to separate out the claim that she’s conservative and that she is looking to impose her religious views on the world.”Where she stands on precedentPrecedent, or deference to past court decisions, is a bedrock principle of American jurisprudence. Lower courts are bound by precedents set by the Supreme Court and the high court often upholds its own precedent.However, the Supreme Court sometimes reverses past decisions, and in her scholarly writings and speeches over the years, Barrett has stressed that stare decisis — the legal principle of following precedent — is not an absolute principle.“There is a time when cases should be overruled and errors corrected,” she said on a panel at the Federalist Society, a highly influential organization of conservatives and libertarians that advises the Trump White House on judicial nominations.In a 2013 law journal article, Barret singled out the type of precedents that could potentially be overturned, drawing a distinction between Supreme Court decisions that serve as simple precedent and so-called “super-precedents” – cases that “no justice would overrule.”Among super precedents, she cited Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 Supreme Court ruling that ended racial segregation in public schools, but not Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. In 2017, she declined to say whether the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage qualified as a “super-precedent.”That worries LGBTQ rights advocates.“She is on record as saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman which indicates to us that she is hostile to the Obergefell ruling and could potentially seek to undermine or overturn it,” said Kevin Jennings, president of Lambda Legal, the largest LBGTQ rights legal advocacy organization in the country. He was referring to the 2015 Obergefell v Hodges court ruling recognizing same-sex marriage as a constitutional right.Hessick said Barrett’s stance on precedent is “a little bit more aggressive” than other jurists’.“She’s written multiple articles saying that there are good reasons to allow litigants to challenge precedent and for courts to reconsider precedent, that It’s important to get it right,” Hessick said.On the other hand, just because a decision is not considered a super-precedent, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be overturned, Hessick added. “It just means that there’s less restriction on overturning it, that judges should be more willing to re-examine it.”However, while Roe v. Wade is unlikely to be overturned anytime soon despite a fervent campaign by religious groups, Obergefell may be more at risk.“It’s a very important decision, but it’s a recent decision,” Hessick said. “And I think that that probably opens the door for some people to think that it’s more amenable to a challenge than some of the precedents that have been around for a really long time.”Another major issue whose outcome Barrett could influence is the Affordable Care Act. On November 10 — a week after the presidential election — the court is set to hear oral arguments in the latest case challenging the program.As a professor at Notre Dame in 2012, Barrett signed a protest statement denouncing Obamacare, saying a religious exemption from the law’s contraceptive coverage mandate “changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty.”Later, Barret criticized a high court decision upholding the law, taking Chief Justice John Roberts to task for construing as a tax Obamacare’s penalty on individuals lacking health insurance coverage.Ultimately, court watchers say there is no way to know with certainty how she’ll vote on hot-button issues. Justices evolve over time and sometimes break ranks with their ideological cohorts.Going back to the 1950s, a number of Republican justices have gone on to embrace liberal positions much to the chagrin of many on the right.“I don’t know if anyone could have predicted the way Chief Justice Roberts has been voting or the way Justice [Anthony] Kennedy voted in his later years or go back to Chief Justice [Earl] Warren, who Eisenhower apparently said was his worst decision as president,” said Saikrishna Prakash, a University of Virginia law professor who endorsed Barrett three years ago.During her three years on the federal bench, Barrett, according to her defenders, has demonstrated her independence as a jurist. While she has ruled in favor of the Trump administration in two immigration cases and backed restrictions on abortion in two other cases, Barrett has also rejected a police officer’s claim of immunity and a Republican Party challenge to the Illinois governor’s coronavirus pandemic economic and social limits. 

your ad here

Trump, Biden Prepare for Contested Election Over Mail-in Voting

President Donald Trump’s continued attacks on the legitimacy of voting by mail and refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power has raised concerns that a bitterly contested presidential election in November could provoke a constitutional crisis.Experts predict nearly 80 million people will vote by mail this year, and recent polling indicates that nearly twice as many Democrats as Republicans will send in absentee ballots.Trump, who is trailing in national presidential polls, has repeatedly – and without evidence – denounced mail-in voting as fraudulent and a scam. Many states have expanded absentee voting during the coronavirus pandemic to reduce the potential for spreading the highly contagious and deadly disease.In particular, the president has been critical of states that proactively sent mail-in ballots to all registered voters, even those that did not request one.Twice last week, Trump refused to commit to the peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election, citing concerns over the legitimacy of mail-in ballots.”We are going to have to see what happens. You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster,” said Trump during a news conference on Thursday.Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said he was not surprised by Trump’s equivocation on ensuring a peaceful democratic transition. “Look, he says the most irrational things,” Biden told reporters Wednesday evening. “I don’t know what to say about it. But it doesn’t surprise me.”U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other top Republicans on Thursday reiterated their support for the democratic principle of peaceful transition, without directly criticizing the president.Rejection rateAnalysts note that while there is no evidence of widespread vote-by-mail fraud as the president has alleged, mail-in ballots do have a higher rejection rate, mostly because voters fail to fill them out properly.Also there have been cases of ballots getting lost in the mail, and as happened during this year’s primary elections in the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, some states experienced long delays in counting the surge of mail-in ballots.“The more you encourage people to vote by mail, the larger the number of people who will be disenfranchised and their votes aren’t going to count,” said Hans von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commissioner, now with the Republican leaning Heritage Foundation.Von Spakovsky also raises security concerns over mail-in ballots, that they could be intercepted and altered, or that polling staff may not properly check that ballot signatures match the registration signatures on file.Supreme CourtTrump predicts there could be legal challenges to the ballot count that would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. This is one reason he has cited for his intention to nominate a replacement for recently deceased liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election.In the closely contested 2000 presidential election, the Supreme Court ruled on a vote recount dispute in Florida that essentially provided Republican George W. Bush a victory over former Democratic Vice President Al Gore by one electoral vote.Gore then conceded, saying it was for the good of the country, despite winning the overall popular vote.The Supreme Court’s role this year in all of this – if any – remains to be seen.“Hopefully we won’t be in a situation in which we’re asking justices to rule on a case that will decide the outcome of the election. I think that would be very problematic for democracy,” said Sam Berger, a Democratic political analyst at the Center for American Progress.Red MirageOne contested election scenario called the Red Mirage or Blue Shift could sow doubt over the legitimacy of the election and lead to legal challenges to mail-in voting.A Democratic polling firm called Hawkfish projected that because the mostly Democratic mail-in ballots could take days longer to tabulate than in-person voting, Trump may take the lead on election night, but eventually lose to Biden as absentee ballots are counted.Democrats reportedly fear Trump would claim victory early and refuse to later concede by challenging the legality of mail-in ballots.Also, according to a report last week in The Atlantic, the Trump campaign, citing possible vote-by-mail fraud, is considering asking Republican-controlled state legislators, “to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.”In the complicated U.S. Electoral College system that gives added weight and influence to smaller, rural states, the popular vote in each state is used to select a slate of electors who pledge to cast their ballots for the winning candidate.Democrats would almost certainly challenge in court any Republican attempts to override the popular vote in Biden’s favor by installing electors pledged to vote for Trump.Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center For Justice at New York University Law School, says there is long established legal precedent, “that made it clear that when it comes to the electoral votes, it’s the voters’ will, not the legislators’ or the tweets of any candidate that decide.”A protracted legal battle over a contested election, analysts fear, could undermine public confidence in the American democratic system and provoke political violence from both right-wing militias and radical leftists. 

your ad here

Протести проти карантину в Лондоні: постраждали дев’ять поліцейських і троє учасників

У сентрі Лондона 26 вересня знову пройшла акція протесту проти антикоронавірусних обмежень. Акція зібрала на Трафальгарській площі кілька тисяч людей, передають британські медіа.

Учасники протесту, що скандували «Свободи», «Ми не погоджуємося», вступили в сутички з поліцією, яка вимагала від них розійтися. Причиною було те, що противники антиепідемічних заходів їх не дотримувалися: не зберігали соціальну дистанцію та не носили захисних масок.

Читайте також: «Не знаю нікого, хто б захворів на коронавірус»: як говорити з людьми, які не вірять в загрозу COVID-19

Натовп кидав у поліцейських пляшки. За інформацією лондонської поліції, через сутички постраждали дев’ятеро офіцерів і троє протестувальників. Відомо наразі про 16 затриманих.

Протести прокоментував мер Лондона Садік Кхан, назвавши їх «неприйнятними». Він закликав протестувальників розійтися.

«Ви ставите під загрозу безпеку нашого міста. Насильство проти офіцерів не толеруватиметься, а порушники відчують на собі всю силу закону», – написав Кхан у своєму твітері.

Днями прем’єр-міністр Великої Британії Борис Джонсон заявив про посилення карантинних заходів через зростання кількості хворих на COVID-19 у країні.

Аналогічні протести відбулися в Лондоні минулої суботи, тоді затримали 32 протестувальника, більше десятка поліцейських були травмовані.

За даними Університету Джонса Гопкінса, у Великій Британії на коронавірусну хворобу захворіли 421 816 людей, з них 42 060 померли. Показники захворюваності, що знизилися влітку, почали знову зростати у вересні.

your ad here

Заступника голови асоціації ветеранів Косова відправили на суд до Гааги

Заступника голови Асоціації ветеранів війни Косова Насіма Харадіная перевезли до Нідерландів для участі в трибуналі з воєнних злочинів, повідомила Спеціалізована судова палата Косова 26 вересня.

Згідно з ордером на арешт, Харадіная підозрюють у залякуванні свідків, помсті та порушенні таємниці судового процесу через оприлюднення конфіденційних даних, в тому числі імен свідків.

Палата повідомила, що перша поява Харадіная в суді Гааги буде анонсована «належним чином».

Читайте також: Прем’єр-міністр Косова вітає ідею назвати на честь Трампа спірне озеро на кордоні з Сербією

Насіма Харадіная заарештували 25 вересня у районі Пейтон, що в передмісті Приштини. Як повідомляє балканська служба Радіо Свобода, перед арештом Харадінай заявив журналістам, що не визнає Спеціалізовану палату та Спеціалізований офіс прокурора (СОП).

За заявою СОП, «операційну та логістичну підтримку» арешту Харадіная надали Місія з верховенства права в Косові та косовська поліція.

Напередодні до Гааги відправили заарештованого голову Асоціації ветеранів війни Косова Хюсні Ґуджаті.

Спеціалізована палата в справах Косова в Гаазі розслідує воєнні злочини, здійснені в Косові під час війни місцевих сепаратистів за незалежність від Сербії у 1998-1999 роках.

your ad here

Trump Nominates Barrett for Supreme Court Post

U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday nominated Amy Coney Barrett to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, giving him an opportunity to make the court more conservative, 37 days before the November 3 presidential election.”Today it is my honor to nominate one of our nation’s most brilliant and gifted legal minds to the Supreme Court … Judge Amy Coney Barrett,” Trump said to a gathering in the White House Rose Garden.“This should be a straightforward and prompt confirmation,” he said, urging lawmakers and media to refrain from personal and partisan attacks on Barrett.The president also noted that should Barrett be confirmed, she would be the first mother of school-age children to serve on the nation’s highest court.In brief remarks, Barrett praised Ginsburg’s life of service, to women and the court.Trump had promised to nominate a woman to succeed Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87. Barrett, a conservative appeals court judge, had been a front-runner for the seat along with another appeals court judge, Barbara Lagoa, both of whom were appointed by Trump earlier in his administration to the federal bench.The president’s decision to make an appointment ahead of his heated reelection contest with former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden instantly sparked a fierce political battle in Washington, with Senate Republican leaders arguing the confirmation process should proceed as quickly as possible and Democrats contending the nomination should be delayed until the winner of November’s presidential election is known.At stake is the political leaning of the Supreme Court, to which justices are appointed for life. The court had a 5-4 conservative majority before Ginsburg’s death. If a conservative justice is confirmed to replace Ginsburg, the conservative majority could shift to 6-3.President Donald Trump walks along the Colonnade with Judge Amy Coney Barrett to a news conference to announce her as his nominee to the Supreme Court, at the White House, Sept. 26, 2020.Whoever fills Ginsburg’s vacant seat will play a role in making key Supreme Court decisions in the coming years on a range of important issues, likely including abortion rights, health care, gun laws, religious liberty, immigration and freedom of speech.Election Day loomingSenate Republican leaders are planning to move quickly to confirm Trump’s court nominee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to confirm the choice by Election Day on November 3.Trump has said that it is important to have a full court on Election Day in case there are legal challenges regarding the vote.“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court,” Trump said Wednesday of the general election, adding, “and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices.”A flurry of election litigation has already begun in states across the country amid an expectation of large increases in mail-in ballots and early voting brought on by the coronavirus pandemic.Judge Amy Coney Barrett reacts as President Donald Trump announces her as his nominee to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat, at the White House in Washington, Sept. 26, 2020.Support for BarrettBarrett has drawn wide support from the conservative legal establishment in the United States.She is a 48-year-old devout Catholic who is very popular among conservative evangelical Christians, arguably Trump’s most loyal supporters.Barrett taught law at the University of Notre Dame, one of the most prominent U.S. Catholic universities, for 15 years before Trump named her in 2017 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which covers the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.Religious conservatives hope Barrett would vote to overturn the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion rights in the United States. While Barrett has in the past expressed criticism of the ruling, she also said during her 2017 confirmation hearing to the appeals court that she would view previous Supreme Court rulings as binding precedent.Democrats opposed her confirmation in 2017, voicing concerns about the role she places on religion in her life. They cited comments Barrett made at Notre Dame, saying a “legal career is but a means to an end … and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”Vice President Mike Pence told ABC News this week that Barrett faced “intolerance” about her faith in her last confirmation hearing.Political battleRepublicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, the legislative body that is responsible for confirming judicial appointments.Two Republicans have said they oppose filling Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat before November: Lisa Murkowski from Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. However, two more Republican senators would have to join them to give Democrats the ability to block a potential nominee, and it appears the remaining Republicans are united in their bid to see a confirmation hearing take place.Democratic leaders in the Senate charge Republicans with hypocrisy because they refused to allow consideration of former President Barack Obama’s final Supreme Court nominee in 2016. At that time, Republicans argued that high court vacancies should be left unfilled during an election year so the American people can weigh in on the choice.Now, Democrats are arguing Republicans should apply that same logic and hold off on filling the Supreme Court seat until after the presidential election.Republicans have defended their actions, arguing that the situation was different in 2016 because at that time there was divided government — one party held the presidency, and the other party held the Senate — whereas in 2020 Republicans control both bodies.Trump’s Supreme Court nominee would be his third, following Senate approval of two other conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both of which came after contentious confirmation hearings.

your ad here

US Imposes Curbs on Exports by China’s Top Chipmaker SMIC

The U.S. government has placed new export restrictions on China’s most advanced maker of computer chips, citing an “unacceptable risk” that equipment sold to the country’s Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC) could be used for military purposes.According to a letter Friday by the Commerce Department, American suppliers of certain technology products to SMIC will need to apply for individual licenses before they can export to the Chinese company.The U.S. has cut off China’s telecom giant Huawei from essential supplies of semiconductors since September 15. As the requirement takes effect, SMIC becomes the second leading Chinese technology company to face U.S. trade sanctions.When asked for comment, the Chinese chipmaker told Reuters it had not received any official notice of the restrictions from Washington and said it had no ties with the Chinese military.’No relationship’ with militaryLast month, after the Trump administration reportedly was considering adding SMIC to a trade blacklist, the company denied its technology was for military use. “The company manufactures semiconductors and provides services solely for civilian and commercial end-users and end-uses. We have no relationship with the Chinese military,” SMIC said in a statement.The Chinese company indicated last month that in order to avoid U.S. sanctions, it was willing to abide by the American rules and stop selling chips to Huawei.For all of China’s efforts to become a global leader in high technology, the factory of the world is yet not able to manufacture top-level contenders in one crucial area — the microchip, the nervous system that runs just about every electronic device. Last year, China imported more than $304 billion in computer chips, more than it spent on crude oil.SMIC’s best manufacturing process is believed to be able to make 14-nanometer microchips, which are several generations behind Samsung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., which already makes 5-nanometer chips.  Even for those less advanced chips, SMIC still heavily relies on American technology and equipment.

your ad here

Consistent Conservative, Devout Catholic Could Serve on Court for Decades

Amy Coney Barrett is a 48-year-old devout Catholic and an apparent abortion-rights opponent who is popular among conservative evangelical Christians, arguably President Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters.Barrett has authored more than 100 opinions since her 2017 confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which covers the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.Her opinions have consistently reflected her conservative values.She was a front-runner for Trump’s third nomination to the Supreme Court, to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died September 18. He nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017 to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. After the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to fill the seat.Barrett, a New Orleans native, earned a degree in English literature from Rhodes College in Memphis, Tennessee, and then entered Notre Dame Law School in Indiana in the fall of 1994.She began teaching at the law school in 2002 at age 30 and served as a judge for the first time when confirmed for the 7th Circuit.Seen as Scalia successorReligious conservatives and others salute Barrett as an ideological successor to the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she worked as a clerk. She is the ideological opposite of Ginsburg.Scalia was a leading advocate of originalism, in which justices attempt to interpret constitutional laws by what they meant at the time they were written. Barrett has for years expressed sympathy for originalism, which many liberals oppose on the grounds the approach is too rigid and does not allow the Constitution to evolve in contemporary times.As a law professor, Barrett expressed some criticism of the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which protects a pregnant woman’s right to have an abortion.Barrett has been a member at times of the conservative Federalist Society. She has long been associated with People of Praise, a small spiritual Christian community in Indiana, although her current status with the group is not publicly known.If confirmed by the Senate, Barrett would become the youngest justice on the nation’s highest court, a position she could maintain for decades.

your ad here

Роугані назвав «дикістю» запровадження нових санкції США

Президент Ірану Хасан Роугані розкритикував санкції, які Сполучені Штати запровадили проти цієї країни. У телевізійному виступі 26 вересня голова близькосхідної держави назвав дії Вашингтона «дикістю».

«Своїми нелегальними та нелюдськими санкціями та терористичними діями американці завдали шкоди на 150 мільярдів народу Ірану», – сказав Роугані.

За його словами, санкції завадили країні закупити ліки та харчі. Ці гуманітарні товари теоретично підпадають під винятки з санкцій США, проте багато компаній бояться порушити правила та уникають транзакцій з Тегераном.

«Ми ще не бачили дикості таких масштабів. Правильна адреса винних в усіх злочинах та тиску на любий іранський народ – Вашинтон, округ Колумбія, Білий дім», – заявив президент Роугані.

Читайте також: Вашингтон запровадив санкції проти пов’язаних з розвідкою Ірану хакерів

Він також згадав державного секретаря США і послідовного критика Ірану Майка Помпео, назвавши його «міністром злочинів».

Новий пакет санкцій був анонсований 21 вересня. Він спрямований на людей та компанії, причетних до діяльності Ірану в ядерній галузі, а також програмах із розробки ракет та звичайної зброї. Це частина стратегії наступу адміністрації Дональда Трампа в рамках «відкату» ядерної угоди 2015 року, яка дозволяла послаблення санкцій.

Крім того, Вашингтон запровадив додаткові санкції 24 вересня, додавши до «чорного списку» суддів та інституції, причетні до порушення прав людини, в тому числі – страти спортсмена Навіда Афкарі.

Державний секретар США Майк Помпео 21 вересня заявив, що Вашингтон має намір і надалі чинити «максимальний тиск», аби змусити Іран перейти до «всеосяжних переговорів щодо злочинної поведінки режиму».

your ad here

«Жіночий марш» у Мінську знову завершився затриманнями

Жителі Мінська назвали суботній марш «народною інавгурацією» лідерки опозиції Світлани Тихановської

your ad here

Ginsburg’s Casket Leaves Capitol After Mourners Pay Respects

Mourners paid their last respects Friday to late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as her casket was carried down the steps of the U.S. Capitol after she became the first woman to lie in state there.Her flag-draped casket drew officials from across government along with friends and family who wanted to pay their respects.Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, were among those to attend a relatively brief and solemn ceremony in the Capitol’s National Statuary Hall.Democratic presidential candidate former Vice President Joe Biden, center, and his wife Jill Biden stand as the flag-draped casket of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in state in Statuary Hall of the U.S. Capitol, Sept. 25, 2020.After House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told those in attendance she had the “high honor to welcome Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to lie in state in the Capitol of the United States,” Rabbi Lauren Holtzblatt delivered the eulogy.“All of the days of her life she pursued justice. Even in illness, she changed the course of American law,” Holtzblatt said. “And even when her views did not prevail, she still fought.”Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, also paid tribute to Ginsburg at the ceremony, which was attended by a limited number of invited guests because of the coronavirus pandemic.Ginsburg’s casket rested on the same wooden platform built for the casket of President Abraham Lincoln after his assassination in 1865.Following the ceremony, mourners were able to pay their respects before a motorcade carrying her casket departed from the Capitol.Burial at ArlingtonA statement by the U.S. Supreme Court said Ginsburg, who was also the first Jewish person to lie in state at the Capitol, would be buried next week in a private ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.Ginsburg had lain in repose for two days at the Supreme Court.U.S. President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania, appeared Thursday at the Supreme Court to pay their respects to Ginsburg. The president, wearing a face mask, made no remarks as he stood briefly a short distance from Ginsburg’s casket at the top of the court building’s steps.Vice President Mike Pence paid his respects to Ginsburg as she lay in state at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.President Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump pay respects as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lies in repose at the Supreme Court building, Sept. 24, 2020, in Washington.Ginsburg was honored Wednesday with a private ceremony in the Supreme Court’s Great Hall attended by her family and fellow justices. Her casket was then moved to the front steps for members of the public to file past and pay their respects until Thursday night.Civil rights icon Rosa Parks lay in honor in the Capitol’s historic Rotunda after her death in 2005, a distinction given to eminent private citizens.27 years on courtGinsburg died last Friday at age 87 of metastatic pancreatic cancer, ending a 27-year tenure on the nation’s highest court. Her status as leader of the court’s liberal minority, along with her prejurist work seeking legal equality for women and girls in all spheres of American life, made her a cultural icon, earning her the nickname “The Notorious R.B.G.”Her death has sparked a political battle over her replacement. Trump and Senate Republicans vowed to name and confirm a new justice before the November 3 presidential election, which would give the court a solid 6-3 conservative majority.Trump announced Tuesday that he would name his nominee for the lifetime appointment on Saturday.

your ad here

Trump Extends Drilling Ban Off North Carolina

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday extended a ban until 2032 on offshore oil drilling off the coast of North Carolina, weeks after a similar extension affecting drilling in the waters off Florida, Georgia and South Carolina.The Republican president ordered the extension in a memo to his interior secretary that did not exempt any of the Northeastern, Democratic-majority states that also have asked to be removed from the next five-year offshore oil and gas drilling leasing plan.The Trump administration, which has worked to expand U.S. oil and gas drilling and roll back Obama-era rules on pollution from fossil fuels, originally wanted to expand offshore drilling off many of America’s coasts, including Florida.But proposals for drilling off Florida prompted fierce opposition from tourism, real estate and environmental interests.  

your ad here

Justice Department Asks Judge to Allow US to Bar WeChat from US App Stores

The U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge in San Francisco on Friday to allow the government to bar Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google from offering WeChat for download in U.S. app stores pending an appeal.The filing asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler to put on hold her preliminary injunction issued Saturday. That injunction blocked the U.S. Commerce Department order that was set to take effect late September 20 and that would also bar other U.S. transactions with Tencent Holding’s WeChat, potentially making the app unusable in the United States.Beeler responded late Friday by setting a hearing for October 15 on the motion but said she could potentially hold it on “a tighter time period.”The Justice Department filing said Beeler’s order was in error and “permits the continued, unfettered use of WeChat, a mobile application that the Executive Branch has determined constitutes a threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”Tencent had put forward a “mitigation proposal” that sought to create a new U.S. version of the app, deploy specific security measures to protect the new apps source code, partner with a U.S. cloud provider for user data storage, and manage the new app through a U.S.-based entity, the filing said.However, its proposal still allowed Tencent to retain ownership of WeChat and did not address U.S. concerns over the company, it added.Tencent declined to comment.Lawyers for U.S. WeChat Users Alliance, the group behind the legal challenge to the WeChat ban, questioned the urgency of the government’s request, noting the time it took for the government to seek a stay.”The government’s decision to sit tight for five days shows that there is no emergency,” they wrote.In support of its argument, the Justice Department made public portions of a September 17 Commerce Department memo outlining the WeChat transactions to be banned.”The WeChat mobile application collects and transmits sensitive personal information on U.S. persons, which is accessible to Tencent and stored in data centers in China and Canada,” the memo said. Beeler said WeChat users who filed a lawsuit “have shown serious questions going to the merits of the First Amendment claim.”The Justice Department filing said, “The First Amendment does not bar regulation of WeChat simply because it has achieved the popularity and dependency sought by (China), precisely so it can surveil users, promote its propaganda, and otherwise place U.S. national security at risk.”WeChat has had an average of 19 million daily active users in the United States, analytics firms Apptopia said in early August. It is popular among Chinese students, Americans living in China and some Americans who have personal or business relationships in China.Beeler wrote “certainly the government’s over-arching national-security interest is significant. But on this record — while the government has established that China’s activities raise significant national security concerns — it has put in scant little evidence that its effective ban of WeChat for all U.S. users addresses those concerns.”WeChat is an all-in-one mobile app that combines services similar to Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Venmo. The app is an essential part of daily life for many in China and boasts more than 1 billion users.TikTok on Wednesday sought a similar preliminary injunction from a U.S. judge in Washington. A judge on Friday said he would hold a hearing Sunday morning about whether to halt the U.S. app store ban on new TikTok downloads set to take effect Sunday night.  

your ad here