• Samuel Hanson ORDWAY Junior, un collapsologue oublié
    http://carfree.fr/index.php/2019/11/12/samuel-hanson-ordway-junior-un-collapsologue-oublie

    Samuel Hanson Ordway Jr. (20 janvier 1900 – 18 novembre 1971), diplômé de la faculté de droit de Harvard, était avocat au barreau de New York de 1925 à 1958. Lire la suite...

    #Argumentaires #Destruction_de_la_planète #Livres #Ressources #Biographie #Collapsologie #consommation #croissance #décroissance #économie #société #usa

  • 20 minutes - La répression s’accentue en Irak - Monde
    https://www.20min.ch/ro/news/monde/story/17677142

    Je verrais assez bien un scénario comparable dans quelques jours pour le #liban (avec la diplomatie française en relais des USA sur ce dossier...)

    Alors que les manifestants redoutent désormais une dispersion par la force de Tahrir et qu’Amnesty International redoute « un bain de sang », la mission de l’ONU en Irak (Unami) a proposé dimanche soir un plan de sortie de crise.

    Avant toute chose, alors que beaucoup en Irak dénoncent « une nouvelle république de la peur », l’Unami réclame la libération de tous les manifestants arrêtés. Elle réclame également que la lumière soit faite sur les enlèvements de militants et de médecins —qui sont pour les défenseurs des droits humains le fait de forces agissant au nom de l’Etat mais aussi de groupes armés.

    Washington appelle à « des élections anticipées »

    La feuille de route de l’Unami propose également un référendum sur une réforme constitutionnelle sous trois mois, une révision de la loi électorale sous deux semaines et de nouvelles mesures anticorruption dans le 12e pays le plus corrompu au monde. Ces amendements sont toutefois loin des revendications des manifestants qui réclament désormais la fin du système politique tel qu’il a été créé après la chute de Saddam Hussein en 2003. Ils veulent une nouvelle Constitution et une classe politique entièrement renouvelée.

    De son côté, Washington a appelé dimanche le gouvernement irakien à organiser « des élections anticipées » et à mener une « réforme électorale ». Elle a également demandé que « cesse la violence contre les manifestants ». « Les États-Unis sont gravement préoccupés par la poursuite des attaques contre les manifestants, les militants civiques et les médias, ainsi que par les restrictions imposées à l’accès à internet en Irak », a écrit la Maison Blanche dans un communiqué.

    #irak #usa #démocratie

  • EXCLUSIVE: This Is How the U.S. Military’s Massive Facial Recognition System Works
    https://onezero.medium.com/exclusive-this-is-how-the-u-s-militarys-massive-facial-recognition-s

    Over the last 15 years, the United States military has developed a new addition to its arsenal. The weapon is deployed around the world, largely invisible, and grows more powerful by the day.

    That weapon is a vast database, packed with millions of images of faces, irises, fingerprints, and DNA data — a biometric dragnet of anyone who has come in contact with the U.S. military abroad. The 7.4 million identities in the database range from suspected terrorists in active military zones to allied soldiers training with U.S. forces.

    “Denying our adversaries anonymity allows us to focus our lethality. It’s like ripping the camouflage netting off the enemy ammunition dump,” wrote Glenn Krizay, director of the Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency, in notes obtained by OneZero. The Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency (DFBA) is tasked with overseeing the database, known officially as the Automated Biometric Information System (ABIS).

    DFBA and its ABIS database have received little scrutiny or press given the central role they play in U.S. military’s intelligence operations. But a newly obtained presentation and notes written by the DFBA’s director, Krizay, reveals how the organization functions and how biometric identification has been used to identify non-U.S. citizens on the battlefield thousands of times in the first half of 2019 alone. ABIS also allows military branches to flag individuals of interest, putting them on a so-called “Biometrically Enabled Watch List” (BEWL). Once flagged, these individuals can be identified through surveillance systems on battlefields, near borders around the world, and on military bases.

    “It allows us to decide and act with greater focus, and if needed, lethality.”

    The presentation also sheds light on how military, state, and local law enforcement biometrics systems are linked. According to Krizay’s presentation, ABIS is connected to the FBI’s biometric database, which is in turn connected to databases used by state and local law enforcement. Ultimately, that means that the U.S. military can readily search against biometric data of U.S. citizens and cataloged non-citizens. The DFBA is also currently working to connect its data to the Department of Homeland Security’s biometric database. The network will ultimately amount to a global surveillance system. In his notes, Krizay outlines a potential scenario in which data from a suspect in Detroit would be run against data collected from “some mountaintop in Asia.”

    The documents, which are embedded in full below, were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. These documents were presented earlier this year at a closed-door defense biometrics conference known as the Identity Management Symposium.

    ABIS is the result of a massive investment into biometrics by the U.S. military. According to federal procurement records analyzed by OneZero, the U.S. military has invested more than $345 million in biometric database technology in the last 10 years. Leidos, a defense contractor that primarily focuses on information technology, currently manages the database in question. Ideal Innovations Incorporated operates a subsection of the database designed to manage activity in Afghanistan, according to documents obtained by OneZero through a separate FOIA request.

    These contracts, combined with revelations surrounding the military’s massive biometric database initiatives, paint an alarming picture: A large and quickly growing network of surveillance systems operated by the U.S. military and present anywhere the U.S. has deployed troops, vacuuming up biometric data on millions of unsuspecting individuals.

    The military’s biometrics program, launched in 2004, initially focused on the collection and analysis of fingerprints. “In a war without borders, uniforms, or defined lines of battle, knowing who is an enemy is essential,” John D. Woodward, Jr., head of the DoD’s biometrics department, wrote in a 2004 brief.

    That year, the Department of Defense contracted Lockheed Martin to start building a biometrics database for an initial fee of $5 million. Progress was slow: by 2009, the DoD Inspector General reported that the biometrics system was still deeply flawed. The department indicated that it was only able to successfully retrieve five positive matches from 150 biometric searches. A later contract with defense industry giant Northrop resulted in similarly disappointing results with reports of “system instability, inconsistent processing times, system congestion, transaction errors, and a 48-hour outage.”

    By 2016, the DoD had begun to make serious investments in biometric data collection. That year, the Defense Department deputy secretary Robert O. Work designated biometric identification as a critical capability for nearly everything the department does: fighting, intelligence gathering, law enforcement, security, business, and counter-terrorism. Military leaders began to speak of biometric technology as a “game changer,” and directives from the DoD not only encouraged the use of the technology by analysts, but also by soldiers on the ground. Troops were instructed to collect biometric data whenever possible.

    The same year, a defense company named Leidos, which had acquired a large portion of Lockheed’s government IT business, secured a $150 million contract to build and deploy what is now known as the DoD ABIS system.

    Between 2008 and 2017, the DoD added more than 213,000 individuals to the BEWL, a subset of DoD’s ABIS database, according to a Government Accountability Office report. During that same period, the Department of Defense arrested or killed more than 1,700 people around the world on the basis of biometric and forensic matches, the GAO report says.

    Krizay’s presentation indicates that the United States used biometric matching to identify 4,467 people on the BEWL list in the first two quarters of 2019. The presentation slide breaks down the numbers: 2,728 of those matches were of opposing forces carried out in the “theater,” or area of where U.S. troops are commanded.
    Presentation slides from Glenn Krizay, director of the Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency. June 2019. Presentation in full below.

    DFBA claims that it has data on 7.4 million unique identities within its ABIS database, a majority of those sourced from military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to the agency’s website.

    That number is constantly growing. The documents suggest the DoD can collect biometric data from detainees, voter enrollments, military enlistments in partner countries, employment vetting, or information given to the military.

    “Almost every operation provides the opportunity to collect biometrics,” a 2014 document on military biometrics says. “While quality is desired over quantity, maximizing enrollments in the database will likely identify more persons of interest.”
    A graphic from a 2014 procedural document outlining military use of biometrics.

    ABIS also enables different operations and missions to create their own biometric watchlists. These databases can be be plugged into custom-built military mobile devices used to scan fingerprints, irises, and match faces against databases, according to a 2014 document outlining biometric procedures across the branches of the armed forces.
    Presentation slides from Glenn Krizay, director of the Defense Forensics and Biometrics Agency. June 2019. Presentation in full below.

    “Fusion of an established identity and information we know about allows us to decide and act with greater focus, and if needed, lethality,” Krizay wrote in his presentation.

    But much is still unknown about how the DFBA and defense agencies use facial recognition and biometric data. A FOIA request which would return information about these systems was denied in part by the U.S. Army.

    “Public release would be tantamount to providing uncontrolled foreign access,” the response letter said.

    In his presentation notes for the Annual Identity Management Symposium, Krizay hints at the future of DFBA and ABIS.

    “We will still need to reveal adversary agent networks, identify and track proxy forces, protect our rear areas and lines of communication, account for enemy prisoners of war, and identify high value individuals,” he wrote.

    The presentation suggests that the department hopes to incorporate biometrics widely into security measures.

    “We’ve already shown we can’t secure our personnel systems,” he wrote. “If Wikileaks can obtain over a half a million of our reports, what can the likes of China or Russia do?”

    DFBA also plans to better integrate ABIS with other similar databases across the government. Despite DFBA being pitched as the central point of digital biometrics for the military, the department is still unable to share information with the Department of Homeland Security’s biometrics system because of formatting issues. In 2021, the DoD is expected to grant a contract for a new version of its biometrics program, one that brings identification software to the cloud and adds even more capabilities.

    “If Wikileaks can obtain over a half a million of our reports, what can the likes of China or Russia do?”

    Meanwhile, critics of facial recognition and biometric technology both in and out of government worry about the accuracy of the technology and how it is being used, especially in regards to bias inherent in much of machine learning, as well as privacy violations.

    The U.S. Commerce Departments’ National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tests have shown that black females are 10 times more likely to be misidentified than white males. When applied in combat scenarios, such discrepancies can have lethal consequences for individuals misidentified by automated systems.

    “It’s unlikely that we will ever achieve a point where every single demographic is identical in performance across the board, whether that’s age, race or sex,” Charles Romine, director of the Information Technology Lab at NIST, told the House Homeland Security Committee in June 2019. “We want to know just exactly how much the difference is.”

    Executives at Leidos, the contractor that built ABIS, do not share similar concerns about the accuracy of their data. “Interestingly, the latest U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tests show that the top-performing algorithms actually work better with black faces than with white faces,” Leidos Vice President John Mears wrote on the Leidos website.

    It’s not clear which tests Mears is referring to on the NIST website, but when contacted regarding that quote, NIST did not support his claim.

    “As a broad blanket statement it is not correct,” a NIST spokesperson told OneZero, adding that a report studying demographics in facial recognition is currently underway.

    Leidos declined to comment for this story, and referred all questions to the DoD when asked how it vetted for bias in its facial recognition algorithms.

    This technical challenge is not slowing down the adoption of biometrics. It’s unclear how many identities have been added to ABIS since Krizay’s presentation, or since DFBA last updated its website. Every indicator suggests the military is only growing its capability of collecting more and more data.

    As that data is further connected to sources like the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. military’s surveillance system grows stronger.

    “We are not wandering in the dark,” Krizay wrote in his presentation. “We know who people are and more of what they have done.”

    #militaire #guerre #vie_privée #USA #technologie #reconnaissance_faciale

  • Indonesia re-exporting illegal waste to other countries, report finds
    https://news.mongabay.com/2019/11/indonesia-waste-plastic-export-import-illegal

    A report by environmental groups says the Indonesian government is shipping containers of imported plastic waste from the U.S. to other countries instead of sending them back to the source as it claimed it would.
    The report said 38 containers ended up arriving in India, while the others were sent to countries including Thailand, Vietnam, Mexico, the Netherlands, and Canada.
    The Indonesian government has rebuffed the allegation, saying the re-export documents list the U.S. and Germany as the final destinations.
    The groups behind the report have called on Indonesia to work together with the source countries and to prosecute those involved in the trafficking of waste.

    #plastique #déchets #trafic

  • Trump Admits His Border Wall is Not Impenetrable after Reports Parts Have Been Sawed Through: ’You Can Cut Through Anything’

    President Donald Trump has admitted his border wall is not as impenetrable as he had initially claimed after reports that some parts had been sawed through.

    The Washington Post reported on Saturday that smuggling gangs have used commercial power tools to cut through the new parts of Trump’s controversial wall along the Mexican border.

    The gangs used a cordless reciprocating saw, which can be purchased at hardware stores starting from as little as $100, to make gaps big enough for people and drugs to pass through, U.S. agents and officials who have knowledge of the situation told the newspaper.

    Once fitted with specialized blades, the saws can cut through the steel-and-concrete bollards of the barrier in minutes, according to the unnamed agents.

    Trump, who spent years insisting his border wall would be impenetrable, conceded that any wall can be cut through but insisted the damage could be “easily fixed.”

    “We have a very powerful wall. But no matter how powerful, you can cut through anything, in all fairness,” Trump told reporters in Washington, D.C. before his departure for New York City on Saturday evening.

    "We have a lot of people watching,’ Trump added, according to Politico. “Cutting is one thing, but it’s easily fixed. One of the reasons we did it the way we did it, it’s very easily fixed. You put the chunk back in.”

    But according to the Post, smugglers have learned how to cut the bollards and then return them to their positions so that the damage goes unnoticed, allowing the passage to be used multiple times.

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents reportedly drive along the barrier and kick the bollards with their boots to check for any defects in the metal. If any are found, welding crews are sent in to fix the damage.

    But smugglers have also returned to the same bollards once they have been fixed and cut through the welds as the metal on those bollards is softer, the Post reported. They have also tried to trick agents by using a putty that looks like welding to make a bollard that has been cut look as if it is still intact.

    And cutting isn’t the only technique used by the smugglers to circumvent the barrier. They have also been building makeshift ladders to scale the wall, especially in the San Diego area, the Post reported.

    In a statement to Newsweek, a CBP spokesperson insisted that “the wall is working.”

    The spokesperson said: "Any characterization that the wall isn’t working is simply false. The wall is working and is providing additional capability that Border Patrol agents have asked for.

    “What we’re building is a wall system, which includes cameras, sensors, infrastructure and border patrol agents to ensure we ultimately apprehend the criminals trying to defeat it. When someone cuts through the wall and a border patrol agent is standing there to arrest them because of the technology that gave them a heads up, that’s a win.”

    The spokesperson didn’t elaborate on how many breaches there have been.

    But a senior administration official, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity, said there had been “a few instances” but added that the new fencing had “significantly increased security and deterrence.”

    Trump has made building the wall along the border to stop migrants coming into the U.S. from Mexico a major feature of his presidency, repeatedly boasting about its construction at rallies, in ads and on Twitter.

    He recently touted the taxpayer-funded barrier as a “world-class security system” that is “virtually impenetrable.”

    “When the wall is built, it will be virtually impossible to come over illegally, and then we’re able to take border control and put them at points of entry,” Trump said during a visit to a construction site in San Diego’s Otay Mesa area in September, according to the Associated Press.

    https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admits-border-wall-not-impenetrable-saw-cut-through-1469428

    Si même #Trump le dit.................

    #walls_don't_work #murs #barrières_frontalières #frontières #USA #Etats-Unis

  • Insultes sexuelles et politique du genre dans le mouvement protestataire au #Liban

    Je rassemble ici divers éléments de discours et matériaux repérés sur les réseaux sociaux sur cette thématique, qui est exploité pour créer des divisions à l’égard du mouvement de protestation contre le gouvernement

    D’abord, un thread très éclairant de Maya Mikdashi, prof. de Gender Studies, éditrice-fondatrice de la revue en ligne Jadaliyya (@mayamikdashi sur twitter ) commentant le discours de Nasrallah avec un cadrage #genre et montrant comment les insultes sexuelles proférées contre les membres de gouvernement (insultant leur mère, leur femme, leur fille, ou les traitant de maquereau (comme je l’ai vu tagué dans le centre-ville de Beyrouth à propos du président) appellent en retour une justification des attaques contre les manifestants occupant les places centrales ou barrant des routes sur le registre de l’honneur viril bafoué.
    https://twitter.com/mayamikdashi/status/1190350060179066880

    1/thread on #Nasrallah speech: Head of #Hezbollah Sayyed Nasrallah gave highly anticipated speech today, the latter half was dedicated to situation on the ground in 🇱🇧due to #LebanonProtests. He used trope of “honor” 2 explain violence against protests (more below)

    2/he addressed government, corruption, foreign intervention & protests. Stated his disagreement with resignation Saad #Hariri, which he said effectively means that demanded economic reforms-as well as cabinet’s promises of reform-will not happen for a long time due to paralysis

    3/He addressed corruption, saying it was funny that all admit to endemic corruption & simultaneously proclaims personal innocence(subtle dig at #Aoun/ not subtle dig at everyone else). Supports professional govt & stressed #USA interference in government & economy & 🇱🇧politics

    4/while insisting that no foreign country interferes in any aspect of Hizballah’s (ie Iran) decision making (even he smiled while saying this). He supported demands of the protestors when it came 2 corruption & reform, but said that the protests quickly focused on “one side” &

    5/ that numbers of protestors were in the 100s of thousands (not millions) & that strategy of closing roads was negatively impacting civilian & economic life, stressing the closing of roads to the South. Insisted on Hizb’s ability to defend 🇱🇧 at any time from attacks by 🇮🇱

    6/ What he DID NOT DO was condemn violence against protestors by supporters of Amal & (lesser extent) Hezbollah in #Beirut and South. In fact, Nasrallah tried to explain them through gendered “honor” discourse. He stressed repeatedly that protestors had crossed⛔️lines in politics

    7/by swearing at the mothers, sisters & wives of politicians & said that any supporter would moved to defend the “honor” of the person being insulted. Nasrallah linked violence against protests to wounded masculinity & defense of honor, which is always embodied by women.

    8/ This gendered discourse seeks 2 explain violence & excuse it. #Feminists have ALSO tried 2 change chants bc they insult men through degrading women closest to them, like mothers. Feminists have attacked the gendered & sexist honor discourse that animates the chants. Nasrallah

    9/ uses same #gendered #sexist honor discourse encoded in chants 2 explain violence “in response” 2 wounded male honor & masculinity + to evade substance of protests & focus on rhetorical offenses. Disappointing but not surprising from Nasrallah, who has used honor discourse b4

    10/ This speech is important reminder that #gender politics ARE #POLITICS & should not be left out of political analysis in 🇱🇧 or elsewhere. Masculinity & its wounding was central to his explanation of their stance on protests, as was the “protection” of (men’s) honor (women)

    11/ This speech will not stop the #Lebanonprotests & is more of the same stalling strategy seen from other political factions. They all hope⏳will wear the uprising down, but protestors know this & have already called 4 more mobilization. [PS i agree with Nasrallah
    #لبنان_ينتفض

    12/ that the "all but not me"corruption talk is 😅.
    In other news #Nasrallah continues to have the most immaculate beard ever seen 👀 &
    short takeover of bank assoc. by small group protesting against regime & logic of the banking system was much more interesting 2day #لبنان_ينتفض

    FYI #GENDER POLITICS IS #POLITICS is not a topical approach (ie women in the revolution, or the"inclusion" of women &/or LGBTQ). Instead it is an ANALYTIC frame that helps us understand #politicaleconomy, discourse, practice
    & theory + law, #ideology, and much more. #Lebanon

    La question de l’insulte

    Thread de Sylvain Perdigon sur Twitter (professeur d’anthropologie à l’Université américaine de Beyrouth) :
    https://twitter.com/sylvaindarwish/status/1190600828488503296

    But also we end up with a rather long televised spoken treatise by a prominent political-religious leader on the appropriate use of language, namely, on cursing 5/n
    It’s easy to make fun of that and to find it comical (I know I do) but if I’m honest I must add that in my case it was preceded by conversations with people on the other side of the dispute, one week ago, also about the use of language and specifically cursing 6/n
    People speaking in the register of ’this is a revolution in language and this is good’ and even I’d say (the gloss is mine) ’we almost corporeally need the possibility to curse in this way’ 7/n
    and then of course we can observe that the remarks I just made can easily develop into yet another meta-mode of talking in the register of ’but how does cursing work anyway?’, ’can I push for my right to curse to be recognized and why exactly would I want to do that?’ ... 8/n
    ’can I ask for a right to curse as a matter vital to me, and also ask you to understand that my cursing you does not have to imply a refusal to share the world with you?’ 9/n
    This is what I’m trying to say when I say that so much of the current juncture seems to revolve entirely around the question of: what was, is, and should be our relation to language? and around a very poignant open-ended exploration of that. 10/n

    A titre d’illustration, un tweet signalant une vidéo d’un cadre du parti aouniste (Charbel Khalil) stigmatisant les manifestants du centre ville en raison de l’homosexualité affichée de certains d’entre ou des groupes qui les représentent.
    https://twitter.com/JeanNakhoul/status/1188894866815815681
    et la vidéo twittée : https://twitter.com/dankar/status/1188891588329639936

  • La BBC accuse les GAFA de participer à un système d’esclavage moderne Katja Schaer/jfe - 2 Novembre 2019 - RTS
    https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/10833864-la-bbc-accuse-les-gafa-de-participer-a-un-systeme-d-esclavage-moderne.h

    #Google, #Apple et #Facebook sont au coeur d’une polémique lancée par la BBC. Ils sont accusés, par les enquêteurs du média britannique, de participer à un système d’esclavage moderne.

    L’enquête a été menée par le média britannique au Koweit - un pays dans lequel la majorité des ménages ont des domestiques, généralement des femmes, venues notamment du continent africain. Ces travailleuses domestiques entrent au Koweït avec un visa qui nécessite un employeur ou un sponsor officiel. Mais souvent, ces sponsors retirent ensuite leur passeport à ces femmes, qui n’ont dès lors plus le droit de changer d’emploi sans l’accord de ces mêmes sponsors.

    Selon la BBC, ces femmes deviennent souvent des travailleuses invisibles et non payées. Les enquêteurs ont également constaté qu’il existait un marché illégal de revente sur internet de plusieurs milliers de femmes. Ces petites annonces proposent par exemple : « une domestique africaine, propre et souriante ».

    Plateformes de vente
    Les géants du web sont au coeur de la tourmente. En effet, dans cette affaire, Google et Apple ont validé et fourni un accès à des applications servant de plateforme de vente et d’achat. Pour Urmila Boohly, rapporteuse spéciale de l’ONU interrogée par la BBC, les géants du web doivent être tenus pour responsables. « C’est l’exemple par excellence de l’esclavage moderne. Google, Apple, Facebook et toute autre entreprise qui hébergent ce type d’application doivent être tenues pour responsables. Elles font la promotion d’un marché en ligne d’esclaves ».

    Ce point de vue fait débat. D’autres estiment que les GAFA ne peuvent être tenus responsables des contenus des applications qu’ils ne gèrent pas et ne détiennent pas.

    Réaction des GAFA
    Quoi qu’il en soit, Instagram, propriété de Facebook, a supprimé le hastag équivalent à « bonnes à transférer ». Une autre application, 4Sale, a supprimé la catégorie d’offres de ce type. Pour sa part, Google s’est dit alarmé par cette affaire. A l’heure actuelle, cette polémique n’a mené à aucune action en justice contre les géants californiens.

    #esclavage #gafa #femmes #business_&_internet #esclavage_moderne #exploitation #capitalisme #néo-esclavage #BBC #ONU #Koweit ( pas en #France ? Pas aux #USA ? Pas en #Angleterre Etonnant) #application

  • Celebrating Genocide – Christopher Columbus’ Invasion of America | Wake Up World

    https://wakeup-world.com/2015/10/11/celebrating-genocide-christopher-columbus-invasion-of-america

    “In 1492, the natives discovered they were Indians, discovered they lived in America, discovered they were naked, discovered that the Sin existed, discovered they owed allegiance to a King and Kingdom from another world and a God from another sky, and that this God had invented the guilty and the dress, and had sent to be burnt alive who worships the Sun the Moon the Earth and the Rain that wets it.” ~ Eduardo Galeano

    A good friend of mine, a member of the Republic of Lakotah, had a meeting with her first grade son’s elementary school principal. Apparently, her six-year-old was being defiant in classroom. What were these defiant actions? Well, upon his teacher explaining Columbus Day and honoring the courageous and brave sailor who discovered this land in 1492, he had a couple of questions for the teacher. He wanted to know how it was possible that Christopher Columbus discovered a land in which his ancestors had lived for over 30,000 years, he wanted to know what happened to all the people who lived here in 1491, and he wanted to know why the man responsible for invading his native land and slaughtering his ancestors was being honored.

    I would love to just be a fly on the wall of that meeting with the elementary school principal.

    #états-unis #peuples_premiers #premières_nations #peuples_autochtones #nations_indiennes

  • The Thibodaux Massacre Left 60 African-Americans Dead and Spelled the End of Unionized Farm Labor in the South for Decades | History | Smithsonian

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/thibodaux-massacre-left-60-african-americans-dead-and-spelled-end-un

    On November 23, 1887, a mass shooting of African-American farm workers in Louisiana left some 60 dead. Bodies were dumped in unmarked graves while the white press cheered a victory against a fledgling black union. It was one of the bloodiest days in United States labor history, and while statues went up and public places were named for some of those involved, there is no marker of the Thibodaux Massacre.

    #états-unis #racisme #massacre #violences

  • #Luttes de #territoire : enjeux spatiaux et représentations sociales
    –-> Nouveau numéro de la #revue #EspacePolitique

    Laurent Beauguitte et Marta Severo
    Luttes de territoire : enjeux spatiaux et représentations sociales [Texte intégral]
    Struggles for territory : spatial issues and social representations

    Maude Cournoyer-Gendron, Catherine Trudelle et Laurent DEVISME
    Un nouveau #stade pour #Nantes ? Une production de sens mise à l’épreuve dans une fabrique conflictuelle de la #ville [Texte intégral]
    A New Stadium for Nantes ? A production of meaning put to test through a conflicted urbanism.

    Charlotte Ruggeri
    Un #train au pays des #pick-ups : controverses et conflits autour du projet de #grande_vitesse ferroviaire en #Californie [Texte intégral]
    A Train in the Country of Pick-ups : Controversies and Conflicts over the High-Speed Rail Project in California
    #chemin_de_fer #USA #Etats-Unis

    Marie Méténier
    Lutte environnementale dans le #parc_national de #Dartmoor : (re)définition d’un territoire de nature protégée par la dynamique conflictuelle [Texte intégral]
    Environmental Struggle in Dartmoor National Park : redefining a territory of protected nature through the conflict’s dynamic

    Zénaïde Dervieux
    Pratiques spatiales au nord-ouest du #Zimbabwe : revendications, occupations et résistances [Texte intégral]
    Spatial Practices in Northwestern Zimbabwe : Claims, Occupations and Resistance

    Hadrien Holstein
    #Ségrégation, lutte territoriale et affrontements identitaires dans un espace post-conflictuel, le cas des militants républicains dans les quartiers nationalistes de #Belfast et #Derry [Texte intégral]
    Segregation, Territorial Struggle and Identity Confrontations in a Post-Conflict Space, the Case of Republican Activists in Nationalist Districts of Belfast and Derry
    #Irlande_du_Nord

    Mathieu Uhel
    La « guerre de l’#eau » à #Cochabamba. De la réappropriation de l’espace politique à la reproduction d’un lieu symbolique de la #contestation [Texte intégral]
    #guerre_de_l'eau #Bolivie

    Pablo Corroyer
    « Faunes sauvages » en politique. Tisser et mettre en scène un territoire contestataire : de la #ZAD de #Notre-Dame-des-Landes à #Bure [Texte intégral]
    « Wildlife » in politics. To Weave and To Stage a Territory Protest : from the Notre-Dame-des-Landes’ ZAD To Bure.
    #NDDL

    Laurent Beauguitte
    Le #Bois_Lejuc occupé : éléments sur le fonctionnement d’une petite #zad en #Meuse (2016-2018) [Texte intégral]
    The occupied ’bois Lejuc’ : elements on the operation of a small ’area to defend’ in Meuse (2016-2018)

    https://journals.openedition.org/espacepolitique/6017
    #géographie_politique

    @reka a déjà signalé cet article :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/808509

  • Opinion | The Most Pressing Issue for Our Next President Isn’t Medicare - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/opinion/climate-change-healthcare.html

    Un article qui montre les difficultés de « faire de la politique » (i.e. hiérarchiser les priorités") dans un cadre contraint.

    To argue that health care should be atop the list, you can’t simply say that it is important. You need to believe that it’s so much more important than everything else — climate change, voting rights, immigration, education, wage stagnation, the unfair tax system — that health care deserves to be the Democrats’ only top priority over four decades of presidencies. All those other issues would once again take a back seat.

    And that would be a mistake, because the both moral and political case for some other issues is now stronger than it is for health care.
    Sign Up for Debatable

    Agree to disagree, or disagree better? We’ll help you understand the sharpest arguments on the most pressing issues of the week, from new and familiar voices.

    Climate change threatens the well-being of the planet and everyone who lives on it. The next president can save more lives and better improve human health by slowing climate change than by improving health insurance.

    The wounded state of American democracy is also more pressing. If it doesn’t get fixed, any expansion of health insurance could be reversed in a few years anyway. If the political system can be shored up — by guaranteeing voting rights, regulating campaign donations and granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and potentially Puerto Rico, among other things — every other national problem will become easier to address.

    Unfortunately, these other issues are getting pushed to the margins in the 2020 campaign, while media attention has focused obsessively on Medicare

    #Politique #USA

  • « On me demande souvent ce que cela fait de vivre sans téléphone mobile. Je ne peux que partiellement répondre à la question, puisque je n’ai jamais eu de téléphone de ce type. Je n’ai pas renoncé à un état pour revenir à un autre, et cela m’interdit de comparer les deux expériences, avec et sans, de même qu’un aveugle de naissance ne peut expliquer la différence entre la vue et la cécité. » [Avec un exemple rigolo après, avec #Orange]

    http://hyperbate.fr/dernier/?p=39557

    #FractureNumérique #Usages #ordiphone

    • Les mêmes anecdotes en permanence, et le nombre de services où je ne peux plus rien faire… (même acheter un billet de spectacle, quel rapport avec avoir un téléphone portable obligatoire ?)

      Je leur demande souvent : « comment faisiez-vous avant ? » Et aussi, « comment ferez-vous après ? » – et ce n’est pas une question en l’air : les tensions géopolitiques qui entourent la question du contrôle des ressources nécéssaires à la fabrication des téléphones mobiles et de leurs batteries (Coltan, lithium,…), et le monopole chinois sur ces minerais autant que sur les usines qui fabriquent les smartphones, laissent penser qu’une crise, voire une catastrophe sont tout à fait envisageables dans le domaine

      #téléphone_portable #téléphone_mobile #smartphone

  • As #Scott_Warren retrial nears, judge orders lawyer for volunteer nurse in migrant harboring case

    As Scott Warren — a No More Deaths volunteer charged with two counts of human smuggling — again faces trial, the judge has assigned a lawyer for a volunteer nurse who works with the humanitarian group, in one of several rulings issued Monday morning.

    Warren, a 36-year-old geography professor, faced trial in May on three felony charges, including one count of criminal conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens, and two counts of harboring, stemming from his January 2018 arrest by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Ajo, Ariz.

    In early June, after days of deliberation, a jury refused to convict Warren, but did not find him not guilty. The judge declared a mistrial because of the hung jury.

    Undaunted by the jury’s non-decision, federal prosecutors announced in July that they would seek a new trial, but dropped the conspiracy charge against Warren. They also announced a possible plea deal for Warren, which he did not accept by the prosecution’s deadline.

    As the case has moved toward a second trial, federal prosecutors and Warren’s defense team have issued a flurry of motions and counter-motions that will set the stage for the new court proceeding, slated to begin November 12.

    Among these motions was a request that Susannah Brown, a nurse who regularly provides medical aid to migrants crossing the desert, be assigned a lawyer. Federal prosecutors Nathaniel Walters and Anna Wright argued that Brown should retain a lawyer because “as the government argued in closing” her testimony “demonstrated that she conspired with the defendant to harbor” two men at a ramshackle building used as a staging area for humanitarian organizations, called “the Barn” in Ajo.

    Along with Warren, BP agents arrested Kristian Perez-Villanueva, a 23-year-old man from El Salvador, and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, a 21-year-old man from Honduras. The men arrived together and stayed for four days and three nights at the Barn after crossing the desert days earlier, ending up at a gas station in Why, Ariz., in the desert west of Tucson.

    During the trial, Brown became a surprising target for federal prosecutors who tried to show that Warren was involved in a “plan,” along Brown, and an organizer of shelters in Mexico — Irineo Mujica — to smuggle the two men into the United States.

    While Brown sat in the courtroom looking shocked, federal prosecutors essentially accused her of a felony, and showed as part of their evidence video from Perez-Villanueva’s phone. In the video, Brown briefly spoke with the Salvadorian during a Christmas Day celebration at the shelter in Sonoyta, Sonora. In the video, Perez-Villanueva asks Brown her name, and she responds with the same question.

    As Perez-Villanueva turns his camera, Mujica comes into view and tells the man to put the phone down. Mujica and Warren had repeatedly emailed about the shelter and its needs, according to documents shown during the trial. This included a plan to arrange a Jan. 12 visit to the shelter, and that a group of No More Deaths volunteers went to Mexico to bring water and operate a temporary medical clinic. The next day, Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday began their journey by climbing over the fence that separates the U.S. and Mexico.

    In motions, Warren’s lawyers told the court that Brown could invoke her 5th Amendment rights during a retrial “given the accusations” made against her.

    Collins also considered a motion filed by Greg Kuykendall and Amy Knight, who argued that they should be able to submit evidence that shows Border Patrol agents may “hold biases or prejudices against No More Deaths in general and Dr. Warren in particular.”

    In their motion, Kuykendall and Knight, argued that the jury should be shown evidence that the two agents who arrested Warren—Border Patrol agents Brendan Burns and John Marquez—might have had reasons to “perceive Dr. Warren in a negative light and/or shade their testimony against him.”

    During the trial, the two Border Patrol agents said they set up an observation post about 200-300 yards from the Barn, just across from a rural road on a patch of federally owned land.

    As part of an anti-smuggling unit called the “disrupt unit,” the agents said they worked to break up smuggling organizations, but on Jan. 17—the same day that No More Deaths published a report that was highly critical of the agency, including videos of Border Patrol agents destroying water drops that immediately went viral—the two plain-clothes agents parked themselves near the Barn, and using a spotting scope, zeroed in on Warren “gesturing” to the mountains with two men they believed to be illegally in the U.S.

    Kuykendall and Knight argued that “the government depended heavily on these agents’ subjective impressions and intentions.”

    “This case was essentially a credibility contest—the agents’ interpretation set against the NMD volunteers’ explanations for their actions. The government argued that everything the defense had described was a cover-up engineered to avoid criminal liability,” Warren’s attorneys wrote. “In this context, it is crucial for jurors to understand the various possible reasons the agents may portrayed Dr. Warren as they did.”

    They also argued that Warren’s arrest was part of campaign of selective enforcement carried out by Border Patrol because the agents were upset that NMD had “that very morning, released a humiliating report and accompanying video footage exposing the Border Patrol’s gleeful destruction of humanitarian aid supplies, giving them a specific reason to resent NMD and the people associated with it.”

    Reporter profile
    More by Paul Ingram

    Posted Oct 21, 2019, 1:59 pm

    Paul Ingram TucsonSentinel.com

    As Scott Warren — a No More Deaths volunteer charged with two counts of human smuggling — again faces trial, the judge has assigned a lawyer for a volunteer nurse who works with the humanitarian group, in one of several rulings issued Monday morning.

    Warren, a 36-year-old geography professor, faced trial in May on three felony charges, including one count of criminal conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens, and two counts of harboring, stemming from his January 2018 arrest by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Ajo, Ariz.

    In early June, after days of deliberation, a jury refused to convict Warren, but did not find him not guilty. The judge declared a mistrial because of the hung jury.

    Undaunted by the jury’s non-decision, federal prosecutors announced in July that they would seek a new trial, but dropped the conspiracy charge against Warren. They also announced a possible plea deal for Warren, which he did not accept by the prosecution’s deadline.

    As the case has moved toward a second trial, federal prosecutors and Warren’s defense team have issued a flurry of motions and counter-motions that will set the stage for the new court proceeding, slated to begin November 12.

    Among these motions was a request that Susannah Brown, a nurse who regularly provides medical aid to migrants crossing the desert, be assigned a lawyer. Federal prosecutors Nathaniel Walters and Anna Wright argued that Brown should retain a lawyer because “as the government argued in closing” her testimony “demonstrated that she conspired with the defendant to harbor” two men at a ramshackle building used as a staging area for humanitarian organizations, called “the Barn” in Ajo.

    Along with Warren, BP agents arrested Kristian Perez-Villanueva, a 23-year-old man from El Salvador, and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, a 21-year-old man from Honduras. The men arrived together and stayed for four days and three nights at the Barn after crossing the desert days earlier, ending up at a gas station in Why, Ariz., in the desert west of Tucson.

    During the trial, Brown became a surprising target for federal prosecutors who tried to show that Warren was involved in a “plan,” along Brown, and an organizer of shelters in Mexico — Irineo Mujica — to smuggle the two men into the United States.

    Sponsorships available
    Support TucsonSentinel.com & let thousands of daily readers know
    your business cares about creating a HEALTHIER, MORE INFORMED Tucson

    While Brown sat in the courtroom looking shocked, federal prosecutors essentially accused her of a felony, and showed as part of their evidence video from Perez-Villanueva’s phone. In the video, Brown briefly spoke with the Salvadorian during a Christmas Day celebration at the shelter in Sonoyta, Sonora. In the video, Perez-Villanueva asks Brown her name, and she responds with the same question.

    As Perez-Villanueva turns his camera, Mujica comes into view and tells the man to put the phone down. Mujica and Warren had repeatedly emailed about the shelter and its needs, according to documents shown during the trial. This included a plan to arrange a Jan. 12 visit to the shelter, and that a group of No More Deaths volunteers went to Mexico to bring water and operate a temporary medical clinic. The next day, Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday began their journey by climbing over the fence that separates the U.S. and Mexico.

    In motions, Warren’s lawyers told the court that Brown could invoke her 5th Amendment rights during a retrial “given the accusations” made against her.

    Collins also considered a motion filed by Greg Kuykendall and Amy Knight, who argued that they should be able to submit evidence that shows Border Patrol agents may “hold biases or prejudices against No More Deaths in general and Dr. Warren in particular.”

    In their motion, Kuykendall and Knight, argued that the jury should be shown evidence that the two agents who arrested Warren—Border Patrol agents Brendan Burns and John Marquez—might have had reasons to “perceive Dr. Warren in a negative light and/or shade their testimony against him.”

    During the trial, the two Border Patrol agents said they set up an observation post about 200-300 yards from the Barn, just across from a rural road on a patch of federally owned land.

    As part of an anti-smuggling unit called the “disrupt unit,” the agents said they worked to break up smuggling organizations, but on Jan. 17—the same day that No More Deaths published a report that was highly critical of the agency, including videos of Border Patrol agents destroying water drops that immediately went viral—the two plain-clothes agents parked themselves near the Barn, and using a spotting scope, zeroed in on Warren “gesturing” to the mountains with two men they believed to be illegally in the U.S.

    Kuykendall and Knight argued that “the government depended heavily on these agents’ subjective impressions and intentions.”

    “This case was essentially a credibility contest—the agents’ interpretation set against the NMD volunteers’ explanations for their actions. The government argued that everything the defense had described was a cover-up engineered to avoid criminal liability,” Warren’s attorneys wrote. “In this context, it is crucial for jurors to understand the various possible reasons the agents may portrayed Dr. Warren as they did.”

    They also argued that Warren’s arrest was part of campaign of selective enforcement carried out by Border Patrol because the agents were upset that NMD had “that very morning, released a humiliating report and accompanying video footage exposing the Border Patrol’s gleeful destruction of humanitarian aid supplies, giving them a specific reason to resent NMD and the people associated with it.”

    Sponsorships available
    Support TucsonSentinel.com & let thousands of daily readers know
    your business cares about creating a HEALTHIER, MORE INFORMED Tucson

    Collins accepted their argument in part, ruling that “the defense will be able to inquire as to the possible bias or prejudice of the government witnesses.” However, Collins ruled that a document released by No More Deaths itself “will not come into evidence and will not go to the jury.”

    Collins also denied and granted in part a motion filed by Warren’s lawyers to withhold the description of Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday’s journey in the United States. “The telling of the journey from Mexico to the United States is no longer relevant,” Collins wrote. However, what the two men said to Warren “is relevant and that can come in.”

    Collins also ruled that video from the Why-Not gas station could be played because the video shows the men moving around, buying sports drinks and food before they later received a ride to Ajo.

    “The Court will also allow the playing of the video at the gas station since the extent of the migrants’ injury is still an issue in the case,” Collins wrote.

    Along with this, Collins also will allow testimony that Warren made during a separate trial for misdemeanor charges that he was hit with for entering the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and leaving food and water.

    Collins did accept a motion to allow the defense to submit testimony made during the first trial by Ed McCullough, who showed maps describing where people have died attempting to cross the desert, but was unavailable to testify a second time.

    He also rejected a motion filed by prosecutors that would have kept Warren’s defense team from arguing that NMD had legal “protocols” that were established through consultation with Professor Andrew Silverman and that Warren was acting under the advice of counsel when he brought the two men into the Barn and gave them food, water, and medical care.

    During the first trial, Silverman told the jury that Warren was working under legal protocols that he had helped write, however, federal prosecutors had asked Collins to preclude the defense from “introducing evidence in support of an advice of counsel defense, including evidence pertaining to No More Deaths’ protocols and volunteer training.”

    “Such testimony is irrelevant, improper, and likely to confuse the jury about a material issue in this case,” they argued. Warren and his lawyers had “failed to establish any of the elements of an advice of counsel defense,” because they “did not offer any evidence that [Warren] consulted directly with any attorney and, in fact, objected to disclosing this information to the government.”

    “The defendant’s alleged compliance with the No More Deaths’ protocols also cannot satisfy the elements of the advice of counsel defense,” they wrote.
    First trial ended in jury deadlock

    Warren’s first felony trial began on May 29, and after a seven-day trial, jurors deliberated for about 11 hours over two days before they told the court they were struggling to reach a decision. Collins told the jurors to continue their deliberations, and issued an “Allen charge” instructing jurors to try to reach an unanimous verdict. Among the instructions read by Collins in court, jurors were told to "reexamine their own views, but not to change “an honest belief” because of the opinions of fellow jurors or “for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.”

    But,the next day, the third of deliberations, it became clear that the jury could not reach an unanimous verdict, and Collins declared a hung jury. Following the announcement, Collins set a new hearing for July 2, giving prosecutors time to consider whether they would pursue a retrial.

    During the trial, prosecutors argued that Warren “harbored and shielded from detection” two men in the country illegally at the Barn, and that he was at “hub” of a plan to transport and protect the two men after they illegally crossed the border by climbing over the border fence somewhere near Sonoyta, a Mexican border town.

    Warren, along with two men in the country without authorization, was arrested during at raid by several Border Patrol agents at “the Barn,” a ramshackle building on the town’s outskirts regularly used as a staging point for volunteers who have been working to stem an increasing number of deaths in the remote wildlife refuges west of the unincorporated town.

    As the trial loomed, Warren’s prosecution took on national and international importance, and humanitarian volunteers lead by No More Deaths collected more than 120,000 signatures and submitted them to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tucson just days before the trial began, asking for them to drop the charges.

    Warren’s prosecution also came to the attention of human rights experts from the United Nations, who wrote that “providing humanitarian aid is not a crime. We urge the U.S. authorities to immediately drop all charges against Scott Warren.”

    In a letter written by Michael Forst, a special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the UN body said that Warren’’s work is “vital and legitimate,” and said that No More Deaths" upholds the right to life and prevents the deaths of migrants and asylum seekers at the US-Mexican border."

    “The prosecution of Scott Warren represents an unacceptable escalation of existing patterns criminalising migrant rights defenders along the migrant caravan routes,” they said.

    Forst also noted that Warren’s arrest came “hours after the release of a report” by No More Deaths which linked Border Patrol agents to the “systematic destruction of humanitarian supplies, including water stores, and denounced a pattern of harassment, intimidation and surveillance against humanitarian aid workers.”

    The decision to retry Warren will be the first high-profile test for U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey, who was nominated by President Trump in February and just confirmed by the Senate on May 23. Bailey replaced Elizabeth Strange, who served as the acting U.S. attorney for more than two years after John S. Leonardo stepped down from the position in January 2017.

    Warren’s case is one of three high-profile prosecutions launched against No More Deaths volunteers, including two misdemeanor trials — one also involving Warren — for the group’s efforts to leave food, water, medicine, and other aid in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

    Warren’s trial in the misdemeanor charges concluded in May, but Collins has not rendered a verdict in the bench trial, leaving Warren’s fate in those charges also up in the air.

    After the announcement, Warren thanked supporters supporters and castigated the government for bringing charges against him.

    “In the time since I was arrested in January 2018, no fewer than 88 bodies were recovered from the Arizona desert,” Warren said. “The government’s plan in the midst of this humanitarian crisis? Policies to target undocumented people, refugees, and their families. Prosecutions to criminalize humanitarian aid, kindness, and solidarity. And now, the revelation that they will build an enormous and expensive wall across a vast stretch of southwestern Arizona’s unbroken Sonoran Desert.”
    Re-trial would be complete re-do of case

    With the jury deadlocked and the proceedings declared a mistrial, Collins scheduled a hearing for July 2 to review the felony case. Prosecutors may attempt to re-try Warren on the charges, as the jury did not render a verdict. If they do so, the second trial would be a complete re-do, including the selection of a new jury.

    During final arguments, prosecutors argued that Warren “harbored and shielded from detection” two men in the country illegally at “the Barn,” a ramshackle house used as a staging point for aid organizations trying to stem what volunteers like Warren have called a “humanitarian crisis” in the deserts west and south of Ajo, an unincorporated town about 110 miles west of Tucson. Prosecutors said he was at “hub” of a plan to transport and protect the two men after they illegally crossed the border by climbing over the border fence somewhere near Sonoyta, a Mexican border town.

    Warren testified in his own defense telling jurors that his spiritual values compel him to help those who “stumble” out of the desert into the neighborhoods of Ajo, Ariz., and that doing so is “good and right, especially in a place that feels like a low-intensity conflict.”

    No More Deaths has maintained that the arrests of Warren and others were retribution for the release that same day of a report by the humanitarian aid group, documenting claims that Border Patrol agents vandalized water caches placed for migrants crossing the desert.

    After the trial closed, Warren noted that “the other men arrested with me that day Jose Sacaria-Goday and Kristian Perez-Villanueva, have not received the attention and outpouring of support that I have. I do not know how they are doing now, but I do hope they are safe.”

    Warren and other volunteers testified that the men needed medical care, as they were suffering from blisters on their feet, a minor cold, and injuries from being in the desert. However, prosecutors said that this was a “smokescreen,” and repeatedly referred to selfie photos captured from Perez-Villanueva’s cellphone and surveillance video from the Why-Not gas station in Why, Arizona to show that the men were not injured or sick.

    Evidence of a humanitarian crisis, and the loss of lives in the desert didn’t matter , because border crossers haven’t died in Ajo. “That’s not this case, that’s a smokescreen and a distraction for this case,” assistant U.S. Attorney Anna Wright said during her closing arguments.

    As the case went to the jury, the Border Patrol said that it recovered the body of a Guatemalan woman who died trying to cross the Barry M. Goldwater bombing range, which sits just to the north of Ajo and straddles Highway 85.

    Wright said that after Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday arrived at the barn, Warren called Brown, a registered nurse who volunteers for No More Deaths, not in an effort to get the men medical attention, but rather because she was involved in the “plan” to smuggle the men.

    Brown sat in the courtroom and appeared shocked when she heard the federal prosecutor implicate her in a felony.

    Perez-Villanueva’s phone remained a linchpin to the prosecutor’s case, and Wright highlighted as much saying that while other people who testified might have a bias, the photos and video were evidence that “doesn’t lie.”

    As the trial began, assistant U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Walters told the jury that federal authorities are not targeting humanitarian aid along the border with Mexico.

    “No More Deaths is not on trial,” Walters told the jury. “Scott Warren is.”

    But during the trial, prosecutors argued that these calls and the visit was part of a plan to illegally aid migrants, and noted later that night, Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday decided to cross the border.

    This brief interaction was enough to show a nexus of relationships between Warren, Mujica, Perez-Villanueva and Brown that could not be a coincidence, Wright argued.

    While Warren testified Wednesday, Mujica was arrested in Sonoyta by Mexican authorities.

    Mujica was later released, and the case against Mujica later collapsed, although there are signs that Mexican officials could once agains launch a case against the organizer, even as he now moves freely from Sonora to areas where there are large numbers of African and Cuban migrants seeking asylum in Tapachula.

    Questions about the timing of Mujica’s arrest and the Mexican government’s case remain.

    During the trial, a Border Patrol agent testified that he reviewed 14,000 pages of data from Warren’s phone, and from those thousands of pages the agent produced a one-page report. “They were not interested in innocence,” Kuykendall said.

    Defense attorney Greg Kuykendall said during his closing argument that it was “frankly terrifying, just terrifying” that his client was charged with a “total lack of evidence.”

    “It’s just supposition,” he said.

    In his opening statement two weeks ago, Kuykendall said Warren did not intend to break the law when he came across two undocumented immigrants early last year.

    “Scott intended to perform basic human kindness,” he told jurors, and was acting in accordance with his Christian faith.

    After the jury said it was deadlocked, Kuykendall was asked if “humanitarian aid being targeted by the federal government?,” Kuykendall responded, “you should ask the federal government. And use your own common sense.”

    Kuykendall also told the court last week that emails between Mujica and Warren, along with others showed that Warren was working on search and rescue and recovery efforts, and that when volunteers went to help the “Hope Shelter” there, they should contact Mujica.

    The U.S. government, he said, had all the power and resources to direct the agent to investigate and present all the evidence to the jury, he said. He also argued that the government failed to interview Mujica, noting that as one of the agents, Burns, who arrested Warren testified, he was called to a checkpoint after Mujica was held in a secondary inspection area, and yet he did not “interrogate” the man who might be at the center of the conspiracy.

    Photos from Perez-Villanueva’s phone shows the two men inside a van, after apparently leaving a gas station in Ajo. In the warrant for Warren’s phone, another agent noted that in Mujica’s vehicle Burns found black water bottles, a notebook containing a “detailed account” of travel through Mexico, and identity cards of men who were later apprehended by Border Patrol. However, Mujica wasn’t arrested by Burns, and weeks later, a passenger in his van was apprehended for being in the country illegally, leaving questions about Mujica’s role in Warren’s case.

    During opening arguments, assistant U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Walters tried to downplay the case’s consequences for humanitarian aid in the borderlands. While Warren is a “high-ranking member” of No More Deaths, the group was not on trial, rather Warren is “on trial,” Walters said.

    “This case is not about humanitarian aid or anyone in medical distress,” Walters said. “But, rather, this is about an attempt to shield two illegal aliens for several days,” from law enforcement, he said.

    However, during her closing arguments, Wright focused on the idea that Warren was a “high-ranking member” of No More Deaths, and she admitted that Warren did not receive a financial benefit, but said that instead, Warren “gets to further the goals of the organization” and “thwart the Border Patrol at every turn.”

    During the trial, the two Border Patrol agents— Burns and John Marquez —said they set up an observation post about 200-300 yards from the Barn, just across from a rural road on a patch of federally owned land.

    As part of an anti-smuggling unit called the “disrupt unit,” the agents said they worked to break up smuggling organizations, but on Jan. 17—the same day that No More Deaths published a report that was highly critical of the agency, including videos of Border Patrol agents destroying water drops that immediately went viral—the two plain-clothes agents parked themselves near the Barn, and using a spotting scope, zeroed in on Warren “gesturing” to the mountains with two men they believed to be illegally in the U.S.

    Warren said during the trial that he was trying to “orient” the men, who were preparing to head north, and that he was telling them to stay inside a valley between Child’s Mountain and Hat Peak, where they “if they got in trouble” they could head to Highway 85 and seek help. Prosecutors said that Warren was telling the men how to bypass a Border Patrol checkpoint on the highway and that Warren was giving them a pathway to follow from Ajo toward Interstate 8.

    Warren said that he stayed outside and was working on building a fire in preparation for students from a high-school in Flagstaff to come the Barn, when he saw a “convoy” of vehicles heading his way. Once agents came up to the barn, Warren said during testimony that he was handcuffed within two minutes, but that he offered to walk into the Barn with the agents.

    Burns and Marquez arrived moments later, and went around to the back where Perez-Villanueva was sitting on the threshold in the bathroom door. Inside, Sacaria-Goday was hiding behind the shower curtain.

    Wright attacked Warren’s credibility, saying that by seeking “context” he was actually trying to “distract” from the central issue and that Warren use of the word “orientation” was just a “fancy word for giving people directions.” When he was outside and spotted by Border Patrol agents, he was giving the men information so they could go “from point A, Ajo, to point B, Interstate 8.” These directions gave the men a “path” to follow away from the Border Patrol checkpoint allowing them to “further their journey,” she said.
    Warren: ’Haunting crisis’

    During his testimony, Warren said that he went to Ajo in order to work on his dissertation as a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University. He became increasingly interested in issues in Ajo and met with members of the Ajo Samaritans after he attended one of the Border Patrol’s citizen academies, a six-week course designed to inform the public about the agency’s mission.

    He said that as he stayed in Ajo, his eyes were “really opened” to the humanitarian crisis in the desert surrounding the small desert town, and that he became heavily involved in the community, becoming an elected member of the West Pima County Community Council. “It’s an elected position, but everyone runs unopposed,” Warren quipped.

    As he lived in Ajo, it became clear that everyday migrants “are stumbling” out of the wilderness aching for food, water and shelter, and that helping them is a “ubiquitous experience,” for residents in the town. After months in Ajo, Warren found himself part of an effort to recover the remains of a migrant who had perished in the nearby Barry M. Goldwater Bombing Range, and the experience of finding human bones in the desert, “felt like a big transition for me,” Warren testified.

    “This crisis became real to me, in a haunting kind of way,” Warren said. He was used to finding animal bones in the desert, but the bones from a human being who had died “not long before,” stuck with him, he said.

    After finding the bones, he found that when he saw someone come out of the desert, he again saw the decaying bones at the “same time, almost like a split-screen,” and that he was struck by the “disturbing reality of how people who are living can be disappeared and lost to the desert,” he said.

    Warren testified that he has helped find and recover 18 sets of human remains in the desert around Ajo, and that the work is a “deeply profound effort.”

    During the hearing, Warren’s lawyer Kuykendall asked him, “what are you doing, spending your whole life helping strangers?”

    “It feels choice-less,” Warren said. “How could you not do that when there are people dying around you?” he asked. “How could you not respond?”

    “Everyone who enters that desert will suffer,” he said. Migrants attempt to cross the desert will have to walk a “long, long way” to cross the desert, and they’ll witness death, either of other migrants or their companions, along the way.

    “It’s an epic undertaking, you have to put everything you’ve got on the line in order to make it,” Warren said, telling the jury that migrants often have already faced danger and deprivation in Mexico before they even attempt “the hardest thing they’ve ever done in their lives.”

    Nonetheless, Warren testified that he felt it was important to follow the law, in part to protect the students and volunteers who came to the Barn.

    “Why would you want to understand the legal limits,” asked Kuykendall.

    “I want to work within the border of the law, and not be doing something illegal and put students in a situation where they’re doing something illegal,” Warren said.
    Payback?

    On the day Warren was arrested, NMD released a report that said that from 2012 to 2015, 415 caches of water left for crossers in the 800-square-mile corridor near Arivaca were vandalized, spilling nearly 3,600 gallons of water into the desert.

    During this same time period, the bodies of 1,026 people were found in the Sonoran Desert, according to records from the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner.

    Using statistical analysis, including land-use patterns, as well as video from trail cameras, and personal experiences to support their claims, the group said that U.S. Border Patrol agents “are responsible for the widespread interference with essential humanitarian efforts.”

    As part of the report’s release, NMD also published videos of Border Patrol agents intentionally destroying water bottles, including a video in which a female Border Patrol agent systematically kicks a half-dozen water bottles, spilling their contents, and a 2017 video in which an agent punctures a water bottle with a knife.

    This report embarrassed and infuriated agents, prompting one to say that NMD had “gone too far” and “messed with the wrong guy,” according to a motion filed by Warren’s defense lawyers in March.

    Previous prosecutions
    Federal officials have attempted to prosecute humanitarian volunteers before, though after two high-profile cases in 2005 and 2008, the government avoided formal prosecutions until 2017, when nine No More Deaths volunteers–including Warren—were charged with entering a wildlife refuge without a permit and leaving food, water, and other supplies on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, a 800,000-acre wilderness, west of Ajo.

    In 2005, agents arrested Shanti A. Sellz and Daniel M. Strauss after they stopped the two volunteers, and found three people in the country without authorization in their car. However, that indictment was tossed by U.S. District Judge Raner Collins—the same judge who is overseeing Warren’s case.

    In 2008, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officers cited volunteer Dan Millis for littering on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refugee after he left water jugs there, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction.

    But, after eight years, a detente between the group and Border Patrol began to collapse, beginning with surveillance of the group’s camp on private land south of Arivaca in 2016, and followed by a June 2017 incident when, with a warrant in hand, Border Patrol agents raided the camp and arrested four men, all migrants suspected of being in the country illegally.

    That raid followed an announcement by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions who told reporters during a press conference in Nogales on April 11, 2017 that federal prosecutors “are now required to consider for prosecution” the “transportation or harboring of aliens.”

    Sessions announcement was part of the Trump administrations “zero tolerance” policies as part of a hard-nosed crackdown on border and immigrant communities, and just nine months later, prosecutors in Tucson sought an indictment against Warren.

    Kuykendall also questioned the credibility of the agents, noting their use in messages in a group chat of the word “tonc.”

    The term “tonc” or “tonk” is widely used by agents to refer to border-crossers, but the term’s origin is unclear. Some have argued that the term refers to the sound of a metal flashlight hitting a skull, while others have said that it stands for “temporarily outside naturalized country,” or “true origin not known.”

    And, Kuykendall said that Burns did not know that the Barn remained unlocked and unsecured. After Warren’s arrest on Jan. 17, 2018, Border Patrol agents waited until Jan. 22 to execute a warrant and search the property. Burns appeared to not know that detail until he was told so by Kuykendall in court.

    “What kind of investigation is this, that leaves the building unsecured for 120 hours?,” the attorney rhetorically asked the jury.

    Kuykendall also argued that the two men who also arrested with Warren were given immunity from immigration charges so they would testify in a video deposition shown to the jury on Monday.

    “They are the government’s own witnesses” and yet they disputed some of Wright’s arguments. “This is the best the government can come up with?” he asked.

    Kuykendall said that government’s lack of evidence, “if it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable.”

    No More Deaths vows to continue aiding migrants
    “A hung jury means the government could not prove its case,” Warren defense attorney Amy Knight said. “Scott remains innocent and admirable.”

    Chris Fleischman, a volunteer with No More Deaths, said the organization plans to continue its humanitarian aid work following the announcement.

    “It’s still good to know that the Trump administration’s attempt to criminalize humanitarian aid has failed,” he said. “But we will still be working to end death and suffering in the borderlands.”

    It wasn’t immediately clear after the trial whether the government will seek a new case against Warren.

    “I would think that they wouldn’t waste their effort to do that,” Fleischman said, adding, “We’re concerned for his freedom. That he could be prosecuted for doing what we all had thought is legal anyway.”

    http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/102119_warren_trial/as-scott-warren-retrial-nears-judge-orders-lawyer-volunteer-nurse-mi

    #procès #justice #asile #migrations #réfugiés #délit_de_solidarité #solidarité #frontières #USA #Etats-Unis #USA

    Plus sur Scott Warren ici:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784076

    ping @isskein

    • *Government Doesn’t Want Trump or His Immigration Policies

      Mentioned in Retrial of Border Aid Worker Scott Warren*


      As they prepare to make their second attempt at sending a border-based humanitarian volunteer to prison, federal prosecutors in Arizona are worried that the politics behind the policies they enforce might creep into the courtroom.

      In a late-stage motion, government lawyers have urged an Arizona judge to bar any mention of President Donald Trump or his immigration policies from the upcoming retrial of Scott Warren, a 36-year-old geographer who was indicted on felony harboring and conspiracy charges for giving two young migrants crossing a deadly stretch of desert food, water, and a place to sleep for three days in 2018. Warren is one of nine volunteers with the faith-based organization No More Deaths that the administration has charged with federal crimes for their work in the Arizona desert since Trump’s inauguration.

      The prosecutors’ concerns that Warren’s trial could become a referendum on Trump’s policies — specifically those that involve pressing charges against people for providing humanitarian aid — are not entirely misplaced. According to new research examining public opinion around the president’s hard-line border enforcement measures, Americans, regardless of political affiliation, overwhelmingly reject the notion that providing lifesaving care to people in the desert should be criminalized, suggesting that the government’s crackdown in the borderlands is well outside the bounds of what most people expect or demand from law enforcement.

      A national survey conducted in August by Chris Zepeda-Millán, an associate professor of public policy at UCLA, and Sophia Jordán Wallace, an associate professor of political science at the University of Washington, posed the question: “Do you agree or disagree that it should be a crime for people to offer humanitarian aid, such as water or first-aid, to undocumented immigrants crossing the desert along the U.S.-Mexico border?” To the researchers’ surprise, nearly 87 percent of the 1,500 American adults surveyed disagreed. When the results were broken down along party lines, the survey became even more interesting: Nearly 70 percent of Republicans said they disagreed with criminal prosecution for the provision of humanitarian aid, and nearly 38 percent said they “strongly disagreed” with the idea.

      “The findings suggest that the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of Republicans, do not support the criminalization of the type of work that No More Deaths and Scott Warren were doing,” Zepeda-Millán told The Intercept.

      The survey was conducted for a forthcoming book and paper looking at public opinion around Trump’s most aggressive immigration and border policies. And while there’s still work to be done on that broader project, the researchers chose to share their findings on the humanitarian aid question in advance of Warren’s retrial — he returns to court on Tuesday and faces a decade behind bars if convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms — in part because of how striking they are.

      Students of U.S. immigration enforcement history tend to agree that the Trump administration’s approach did not suddenly materialize out of nowhere, but is instead the extension of a multidecade trajectory of increased criminalization of immigration offenses and an unprecedented build-up in border security infrastructure, now infused with the hard-right rhetoric of authoritarian regimes around the world. There is one area, however, in which the current administration has distinguished itself from its White House predecessors, Zepeda-Millán noted: the targeting of immigrant rights activists. While it keeps thousands of asylum-seekers in legal limbo in some of Mexico’s most dangerous border cities, the administration is simultaneously criminalizing — and in some cases arresting and deporting — those who challenge Trump’s policies, he noted.

      It’s a pattern of “anti-movement state repression,” Zepeda-Millán argued, and it’s why understanding public opinion on these policies is so critical. Traditionally, the best indicator of a person’s stance on a given immigration policy issue is their party affiliation, he explained. “When it comes to immigration, there’s usually a really strict and stable partisan divide,” he said. “As long as we know what your political party is, we can pretty much guess what your opinion is going to be on deportation, on the wall, etc.”

      The survey results bucked that trend in a major way, reflecting a rare thing in American politics: strong, bipartisan consensus on a matter of immigration-related policy in the era of Trump.

      The same Trumpian politics and policies that Zepeda-Millán and Wallace examined, and that prosecutors have sought to banish from Warren’s trial, have served as the backdrop for the government’s criminalization campaign in southern Arizona from the beginning.

      It started in the run-up to the 2016 election, with Border Patrol agents parking their vehicles outside the humanitarian aid camp that No More Deaths has used for years and urging the volunteers to “Vote Trump!” by megaphone. Shortly after Trump’s election, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions flew to Arizona, where he encouraged his prosecutors to bring more cases like the one against Warren. “This is the Trump era,” Sessions said at the time.

      Not long after the visit, the Border Patrol raided No More Deaths’ camp in a show of force that involved a helicopter and roughly 20 agents, some carrying rifles, deployed to arrest four undocumented migrants who had crossed the desert and were receiving medical aid. Six days later, a senior Border Patrol agent in the Tucson sector told a world-renowned forensic anthropologist, who works on the issue of migrant deaths in the desert, that the humanitarian aid group had “messed with the wrong guy.” The anthropologist, in a sworn court declaration, said the agent told her his agency intended to “shut them down.”

      Throughout the summer of 2017, the Border Patrol and senior officials at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked together to monitor the activity of No More Deaths volunteers who were leaving food and jugs of water on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, a profoundly remote and extraordinarily deadly stretch of the Sonoran Desert. They compiled blacklists of volunteers and kept tabs on Warren’s movements in the tiny border community of Ajo, where he lives and works. As summer turned to fall, prosecutors filed federal misdemeanor charges — for littering and trespassing — against Warren and eight other No More Deaths volunteers for driving on designated wilderness and leaving humanitarian aid supplies on the wildlife refuge.

      On the morning of January 18, 2018, No More Deaths published a scathing report implicating the Border Patrol in the destruction of thousands of gallons of water, left in jugs for migrants crossing the desert. The report, which included video evidence that soon went viral, was shared with the patrol agent in charge of the Ajo Border Patrol station. Agents from the station then set up surveillance on a building known as “the Barn,” which serves as a base for Warren, No More Deaths, and other border aid groups. Late in the afternoon, the agents spotted Warren with two young men who they suspected to be undocumented. A raiding party composed of most of Ajo’s law enforcement community was quickly organized.

      Warren and the two young men were placed under arrest. Their names were Kristian Perez-Villanueva and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Godoy. They had fled El Salvador and Honduras, respectively, and crossed the desert by foot, where they were chased by immigration agents and lost the food they had brought with them. In the depositions they later gave, they described how a man in Ajo dropped them off at the Barn and they let themselves inside. Warren showed up not long after. They asked him for food and water, and he welcomed them to both. Warren came and went in the days that followed, the migrants said, along with a number of other humanitarian aid volunteers using the space at the time.

      Warren was indicted a month later on two charges of harboring and one count of conspiracy, bring the total time he faced in prison to 20 years. His trial, which began in late May, ended in a hung jury.

      With Warren’s retrial approaching, the prosecution and the defense have filed several motions in recent weeks, perhaps none so unusual as the one the government’s attorneys submitted on October 29. “For the first time, the United States learned the defense might mention the President of the United States, Donald Trump, his administration, or his administration’s policies,” the motion read.

      Such references, the prosecutors argued, “would be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.”

      The idea that Warren’s actions should now be divorced from the politics of the world at large is a new direction for Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anna Wright and Nathaniel J. Walters — though given the events during the last trial, that is perhaps understandable.

      While Walters, in his opening statement at Warren’s trial over the summer, insisted that the prosecution was not about No More Deaths, and that the government’s concern was Warren’s actions alone, the nature of the prosecution’s case was something else entirely. Throughout the eight-day trial, Walters and Wright argued that Warren was the lynchpin in a shadowy criminal conspiracy to move people into the country illegally for political purposes. According to the prosecutors, the goal was not to make a profit, unlike most other criminal operations, but to undermine the Border Patrol and further No More Deaths’ political aim of establishing a borderless world. Over and over, both at the trial and pretrial hearings, the prosecutors asked No More Deaths volunteers if they supported the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a policy proposal born in the midst of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

      Central to the government’s narrative was a characterization of Warren as a deceptive and “high-ranking leader” of No More Deaths who could not be trusted. In an effort to underscore this idea, Walters at one point entered into evidence an article Warren wrote for the Washington Post on the eve of his trial. The bungled and baffling attempt to draw some damning revelation from Warren’s own assessment of the case backfired spectacularly. On cross-examination, Warren’s attorney, Greg Kuykendall, argued that if Walters was going to cherry-pick details from the op-ed, the jury should hear the rest of what was written. District Judge Raner Collins directed Warren to read the piece out loud and, with that, Warren linked his case directly to Trump’s most infamous immigration enforcement policies, from the crackdown on humanitarian aid to the separation of families at the border to a pattern of potentially preventable deaths in the desert.

      For Warren’s friends and supporters, the introduction of the politics and policies that surround Warren’s prosecution into the official record felt like a turning point, a moment when the people deciding his fate were permitted to see what his case was really all about. In the end, eight jurors chose to oppose Warren’s conviction, while four supported it. In July, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that it would be retry the case, it dropped the conspiracy charge.

      Any efforts to prohibit mention of Trump or his policies would violate Warren’s First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, defense attorney Amy Knight wrote in a motion responding to the government’s request last week. Knight argued that the motion amounted to a request for an “extraordinary ban” with zero “explanation whatsoever of the prejudice” that would result from “daring to mention the President, a man who maintains ultimate authority over this prosecution (notably, the same man who appointed both the United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona).” Not only that, she noted, “the government itself introduced the only mention of President Trump into the previous trial, when, while questioning Dr. Warren, it brought up an article he had written expressing some of his views.”

      Paige Corich-Kleim, a longtime volunteer with No More Deaths, said in a statement to The Intercept that the organization worked “to expose government misconduct and intervene in the border crisis.”

      “The government’s attempts to erase the political nature of this retrial is part of their continued efforts to hide what is truly happening along the border and evade responsibility for the violence they have caused,” she added. “Deaths on the border are the predictable outcome of not just border militarization, but also U.S. intervention in Latin America. Their attempts to limit the scope of evidence are self serving.”

      Whether or not the government’s “he who shall not be named” efforts are successful, there are realities in Warren’s case that the prosecutors cannot escape.

      Since 2001, in Pima County alone, more than 3,000 people have lost their lives trying to cross the Sonoran Desert, a grim result of government policies that began two decades before Trump’s election. These deaths, predominantly resulting from dehydration and exposure to the desert sun, are horrifically agonizing and, as Zepeda-Millán and Wallace’s survey shows, most people oppose criminalizing efforts to stop them from happening. It’s a fact that Zepeda-Millán finds both heartening and deeply sad.

      “The good news is that despite Republican support for very punitive, draconian immigration policies, we seem to have found a limit or a threshold to their nativism,” he said. Though they consistently support a wall to keep undocumented immigrants out, and aggressive deportation measures to remove them once they are here, Zepeda-Millán added, “At the moment of life and death that migrants in the desert often find themselves in, Republicans seem to be willing to throw undocumented migrants at least a momentary lifesaver. That’s the good news.”

      “The bad news,” he said, “is that’s a pretty low bar.”

      https://theintercept.com/2019/11/11/immigration-aid-scott-warren-retrial

  • The Pro-Trump Super PAC at the Center of the Ukraine Scandal Has Faced Multiple Campaign Finance Complaints — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/article/the-pro-trump-super-pac-at-the-center-of-the-ukraine-scandal-has-faced-m

    Last year, a Department of Defense contractor quietly donated half a million dollars to a group supporting President Donald Trump’s reelection.

    Once a watchdog organization noticed it, the contribution raised an alarm. Federal contractors are not allowed to donate to political entities. And groups are required by law to examine all donations for potential legal issues. If they discover that a contractor has made a contribution, the money has to be returned.

    The other unusual aspect of the donation was the man behind it. Randy Perkins, the founder of DOD contractor AshBritt Environmental, had no history of six-figure contributions to federal political groups, although he has been a regular donor to Republicans for the past 15 years. He ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat in 2016.

    The watchdog group pointed out that the money came in a day after AshBritt won a supplemental contract award worth $460,000 from the DOD for wildfire cleanup, bringing its contract total to about $1.7 million.

    Asked about the donation, Perkins said he had meant to make a personal donation to express his support for specific Trump policies: “I actually think this administration cares deeply about children and mental health issues.” He said the contract extension had nothing to do with the contribution.

    #Corruption #USA #Donald_Trump

  • Monsieur le président ...


    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/16/us/politics/trump-letter-turkey.html

    THE WHITE HOUSE

    WASHINGTON

    October 9, 2019

    His Excellency
    Recep Tayyip Erdogan
    President of the Republic of Turkey
    Ankara

    Dear Mr. President:

    Let’s work out a good deal! You don’t want to be responsible for slaughtering thousands of people, and I don’t want to be responsible for destroying the Turkish economy — and I will. I’ve already given you a little sample with respect to Pastor Brunson.

    I have worked hard to solve some of your problems. Don’t let the world down. You can make a great deal. General Mazloum is willing to negotiate with you, and he is willing to make concessions that they would never have made in the past. I am confidentially enclosing a copy of his letter to me, just received.

    History will look upon you favorably if you get this done the right and humane way. It will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don’t happen. Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!

    I will call you later.

    Sincerely,

    Donald J. Trump

    Jake Tapper : I thought this Trump letter was a joke ... it’s real
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL-NcBxYnfg

    #USA #Turquie #politique #impérialisme #satire

  • CNN: 103 Uber Drivers Accused Of Sexual Assault Or Abuse – CBS San Francisco
    https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/04/30/cnn-103-uber-drivers-accused-of-sexual-assault-or-abuse

    April 30, 2018 - (CNN Money) — After an evening of cocktails in San Diego, a woman got into the back of an Uber for a ride home. She was so intoxicated she had to ask the driver to stop so she could vomit. She says she then passed out in the backseat.

    When she regained consciousness, the Uber driver was on top of her, raping her, a block from her home, according to the police report and two sources familiar with the investigation.

    She was able to escape and dial 911.

    Police later arrested the Uber driver, John David Sanchez, 54. When they searched his computer, they found videos of Sanchez raping women and abusing young teenagers, dating back at least five years.

    In November, Sanchez was sentenced to 80 years in prison for the rape of the Uber passenger and 33 other counts against him, including sexual assaults of at least nine other women and children. Sanchez drugged many of his victims.

    A CNN investigation has found that Sanchez is just one of at least 103 Uber drivers in the U.S. who have been accused of sexually assaulting or abusing their passengers in the past four years.

    The drivers were arrested, are wanted by police, or have been named in civil suits related to the incidents. At least 31 drivers have been convicted for crimes ranging from forcible touching and false imprisonment to rape, and dozens of criminal and civil cases are pending, CNN found.

    There is no publicly available data for the number of sexual assaults by Uber drivers or for drivers of other rideshare companies. CNN’s analysis comes from an in-depth review of police reports, federal court records and county court databases for 20 major U.S. cities.

    In another case examined by CNN, a woman from Miami left her kids with their grandmother and went to a bar with a friend. She took an Uber home. She says she passed out along the way and woke up the next morning with her pants and underwear on the floor.

    The Uber driver allegedly carried her into her apartment, threw her onto the bed and sexually assaulted her. She is a plaintiff in a proposed class action lawsuit against Uber.

    “You are pretty much hitchhiking with strangers,” she told CNN. “How many people is it going to take to get assaulted before something is done?”

    According to police, the driver told them he knew the victim had been drinking and was “wrong for what he did.” He pleaded not guilty for sexual battery and awaits trial.

    A woman in Long Beach, California, who alleges she fell asleep intoxicated in the back of an Uber in 2016, told CNN that she woke up with the driver assaulting her. The driver, 47, was found the next day with her phone and later arrested. He claimed the sex was consensual and the district attorney dropped the criminal case against him. She is suing Uber over the incident and for representing its services as “safe.”

    “You don’t think it will happen to you,” she told CNN. “I still feel ashamed … that’s why I’m here. I want a voice. [I’m] tired of being quiet.”

    Uber: ‘We want to be part of the solution’
    Uber, which launched in 2010 in San Francisco as “everyone’s private driver,” is the most valuable privately-held tech startup in the world. It is valued at $70 billion and operates in 630 cities worldwide. Uber provides 15 million rides a day.

    The issue of sexual assault conflicts with Uber’s brand messaging to provide a “safe ride home.” Its print and digital ads show women taking Ubers for nights out, and a partnership with Mothers Against Drunk Driving includes a “designated rider” campaign urging users to take an Uber to avoid driving under the influence. In 2015, Uber set up a popup kiosk in Toronto to offer free rides to those who blew into breathalyzers.

    This is significant given many of the women raped or attacked by the 103 accused drivers uncovered as a part of CNN’s investigation had been drinking, or were inebriated, at the time of the incidents.

    The majority of the police reports reviewed by CNN involved incidents that took place in or near major cities across the country. Uber did not provide numbers on how many of its drivers have been accused of sexual assaults.

    Five drivers across various states told CNN they were not provided any kind of sexual harassment or assault training. Drivers agree to the company’s community guidelines when they sign up to work for the service. Uber said it updated its standards in December 2016 to specify no sexual contact is permitted when using its platform.

    Last week, the company posted a sexual assault prevention video on its website to inform drivers and riders “how to create a safer community.” It also said it plans to host 50 community forums nationwide for advocates, leaders, drivers and riders across to talk about the issue. The changes came after CNN first contacted Uber about this story.

    Uber was made aware of CNN’s reporting for this story months ago but the company failed to make any executives available to speak on the record. It canceled an on-camera interview with an Uber executive earlier this month.

    On a call with CNN last week for an unrelated story, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said cracking down on sexual assault is a “new priority for us.”

    “It is a priority that I expect to remain a priority for the foreseeable future,” said Khosrowshahi, who joined the company in late August after cofounder Travis Kalanick stepped down.

    In a recent statement sent to CNN, an Uber spokesperson said safety is the company’s top priority this year and cited recent protocol updates such as rerunning driver background checks on an annual basis moving forward. The company also said it plans to roll out a dedicated “safety center” within the Uber app where riders can designate contacts they want to share trip details with while they ride; it will also have an emergency button allowing users to call 911 from inside the app.

    “This is just a start and we are committed to doing more,” the spokesperson said. “Sexual assault is a horrible crime that has no place anywhere. While Uber is not immune to this societal issue, we want to be part of the solution to end this violence forever.”

    Lyft, an Uber competitor that provides one million rides daily in the United States and Canada, is also dealing with sexual assaults by its drivers. A similar CNN review using the same methodology found 18 cases of Lyft drivers accused in the past four years. Four drivers have been convicted.

    “The safety of the Lyft community is our top priority,” said a Lyft spokesperson, adding it has “worked hard to design policies and features that protect our community.”

    It’s common for Uber and Lyft drivers to work for both services. But each company performs its own background checks. Both companies mostly conduct digital background checks via a startup called Checkr.

    Uber said it reviews the records of driver candidates that are surfaced to the company by its background check provider. It said any serious criminal convictions, like sexual assault, sex crimes against children and kidnapping, would disqualify candidates.

    The company previously didn’t have a uniform policy on rerunning criminal background checks. But when pressed by CNN, a spokesperson said in January it started running screenings on drivers every two years in mid-2017. In addition to its recent announcement about annual background checks on drivers, Uber plans to monitor new criminal offenses (via public records or pending DUI charges) as they happen.

    CNN found two instances in which drivers pleaded guilty to sexual assaults while working for both Uber and Lyft.

    In one case, a Seattle driver began driving for Lyft after Uber discharged him, according to court documents. He later sexually assaulted a Lyft rider. In the other case, a driver pleaded guilty in San Diego to indecent exposure and the false imprisonment of an Uber passenger, as well as battery for a separate incident involving a Lyft passenger.

    Police are tracking reported crimes by drivers
    Of the 103 Uber drivers accused of sexual assault or abuse, for 18 of them, criminal cases did not move forward either because charges were dropped, cases were dismissed, or drivers were found not guilty.

    The district attorneys and police officers who spoke to CNN said cases don’t move forward for several reasons, such as lacking a probable cause or witness cooperation.

    In addition to finding the 103 drivers accused of crimes or named in a civil lawsuit, CNN contacted more than 20 police departments to obtain data on complaints that involved Uber or Lyft drivers and sexual assault. Four police departments — Austin, Boston, Denver and Los Angeles — tracked crimes involving rideshare drivers and shared their data on sexual assault complaints.

    CNN did not include most of these complaints in its tally of cases, because they could not all be verified with incident reports.

    However, the numbers suggest that there may be many more overall incidents of sexual assault than the 103 cases found in the CNN investigation.

    The Boston Police Department received 24 complaints or reports of Uber drivers allegedly sexually assaulting passengers since 2016. The department received three assault-related complaints involving Lyft drivers during the same period.

    Since 2016, the Los Angeles Police Department has received at least 13 similar complaints about Uber drivers, eight regarding Lyft drivers and more than a dozen about ride-share drivers whose companies were unclear in data shared with CNN. Only one of those cases led to an arrest.

    In Austin, police have documented at least 16 sexual assault complaints about Uber drivers — and at least ten about Lyft drivers — since 2015.

    Meanwhile, the Denver police department has recorded at least nine sexual assault or abuse complaints about Uber drivers and at least 12 about Lyft drivers since 2015, but only two of those complaints resulted in criminal charges. Most of the other Denver cases became inactive due to lack of witness cooperation or were refused by the district attorney for lack of evidence.

    Lawyer: Uber has been ‘keeping this story quiet’
    Jeanne Christensen, an attorney with law firm Wigdor LLP, has been pursuing Uber rape and assault cases since 2015 when her firm filed a lawsuit after a high-profile rape case in New Delhi. The Uber driver, who had a previous record that included rape and molestation, was sentenced to life in prison. The incident sparked protests and caused authorities to temporarily ban Uber from the city for six weeks.

    That case, and questions about how Uber handled it, thrust the issue into the spotlight.

    Most recently, Christensen’s firm represents a proposed class action against Uber on behalf of nine plaintiffs, including the Miami woman CNN interviewed, who said they were assaulted by Uber drivers.

    Uber is trying to compel the women to carry out their case through arbitration per its legal terms of service. When users sign up for Uber, they agree to its terms, which includes resolving any claim “on an individual basis in arbitration.”

    Christensen and the women are pushing back. In a letter to Uber’s board, 14 women detailed their experiences and urged the company to remove its arbitration clause, saying it silences them and forces the issue underground.

    “We trusted a company operating in the space of transportation for hire to mean what it says, and we never thought that Uber would perpetuate physical violence against women,” they wrote.

    An Uber spokesperson previously issued a statement to CNN about forcing the case into arbitration, calling it the “appropriate venue for this case because it allows the plaintiffs to publicly speak out as much as they want and have control over their individual privacy at the same time.”

    Over the years, Christensen said she noticed a trend in those who’ve come to her firm for help: Victims tend to be female and petite, live alone, and were inebriated at the time of the alleged assault, she told CNN.

    “If a driver is going to enter her home, he has [likely] asked her enough questions and knows she lives alone,” she said.

    Christensen — who said she’s currently representing 16 women who alleged they’ve been been raped or attacked by Uber drivers — will not say how many cases against Uber her firm has handled, citing confidentiality.

    Multiple attorneys across the country were similarly silent about their cases against Uber. Like many large companies, Uber requires all parties to sign a confidentially agreement when a case is settled.

    “We aren’t simply filing cases so Uber [can] pay women money and their lawyers to be quiet about it,” she told CNN. “That was a conscious decision that we made. Uber has done a miraculous job at keeping this story quiet.”

    #USA #Uber #sexuelle_Belästigung

  • What Uber’s layoffs tell us about its changing vision | VentureBeat
    https://venturebeat.com/2019/10/16/what-ubers-layoffs-tell-us-about-its-changing-vision

    Die zentralen Botschaften dieses Artikels: Das Management der Firma erklärt, dass der Uber-Konzern als Ganzes wahrscheinlich nie Gewinn machen wird. Die einzige Konzernsparte, die heute Gewinne verzeichnet ist der Essenlieferant Uber Eats . Dessen Wachstums- und Gewinnaussichten sind dabei sehr unsicher.

    This year, it’s been all eyes on Uber. The ride-sharing company went public in May, unveiled bold growth plans, and then posted its biggest ever net loss, $5.2 billion, in the second quarter of 2019.

    This week we’re hearing Uber has had another round of layoffs in a desperate attempt to cut costs ahead of its Q3 results due in early November. This latest news is an unfortunate but unsurprising development in the company’s bumpy journey to become the Amazon of transportation.

    Under the intense scrutiny of frustrated investors and against a backdrop of slumped shares, the seemingly unstoppable beast has finally realized it can’t keep churning through the cash. With the increasing threat of competition from the likes of Lyft in the US and Bolt in UK, it’s been aggressively spending with the view to expand into new territories, product, and service offerings, including Uber choppers, self-driving technology, and food delivery. In fact, Uber’s costs rose 147% to a staggering $8.7 billion in the second quarter, which included a sharp rise in spending for research and development.

    Ahead of its Wall Street listing in May, the company, under Dara Khosrowshahi’s leadership, admitted it may never make a profit. However, six months on, Uber is frantically trying to convince investors that revenue growth will come from a wide range of products and services alongside it’s ride-hailing heritage – the core of its business that it has struggled to make profitable. The most promising of these is Uber Eats, which at just three years old brought in $1 billion in the first half of this year with a rising revenue of 80% year-over-year. Rides, by comparison, grew just a fraction at 6%. Unlike the driverless car plan, Uber Eats could likely grow profit in the near term. Done right, food delivery is a lucrative business. However, competition in this space is fierce, and once again promotional costs will be high in order to win majority market share.

    The fundamental trouble with Uber, as with many Unicorns, is that it tried to run before it could walk. With lofty ambitions and stars in its eyes (flying cars, anyone?), it tried to do too much too soon, innovating in multiple areas to open up additional revenue streams without having first put in place a robust organizational structure fit for future success. They’ve focused too much on scaling and growing in the short term while developing a long-term strategy that isn’t likely to be viable for years due to factors beyond their control. Driverless cars for example, whilst widely considered the future of automotive, isn’t yet supported by the required global infrastructure to make these an imminent reality. The fact that this department was not immune to the cuts speaks volumes.

    It’s time the startup grew up. What we’re seeing now with 1% of its workforce having been laid off or relocated, is Uber’s lightbulb moment; it needs to focus and shed less profitable parts of its business that don’t align with its purpose, including streamlining staff, as a final attempt to balance its books.

    Khosrowshahi’s pursuit of Uber’s “new normal” comes at an unfortunate but necessary cost. The strategic redundancies in the spotlight today show the company is taking accountability and correcting the accidental repetition of work that came about due to a lack of rigor in its structure. Whilst grand aspirations and zealous innovation are commendable, without the proper business configuration and stringent medium-term planning, those ideas are going to be difficult to implement. In short, Uber grew too big too soon, hiring, and expanding without consideration of business consequence, and has now finally recognized it needs to go back to basics and ask the simple question, “If we were to start from scratch, what would we look like?”

    However, the fact Uber is finally coming of age is likely little consolation to those now unemployed. And we can only hope the layoffs haven’t been in vain. Restructuring will inevitably contribute to cutting down the bottom line, but Uber needs to remember that its product is only as good as its people. If it wants to maintain its growth, it needs to start prioritizing its staff. The previous (and public) lack of consideration for its workforce is not only demotivating for current employees but a potential barrier to hiring the very best new talent that can help make the company’s vision a reality.

    In short, Uber needs to remove its rose-tinted glasses and reign in its excessive spending before more of its people – and inevitably its products — become further collateral damage in its quest to be the “operating system of our daily lives.” It’s clear Uber has a vision for the future. Whether or not it’s a profitable one is still to be confirmed.

    Alyssa Altman is Transportation Lead at Digital Consultancy Publicis Sapient.

    #Uber #Uber_Eats #USA #Kapitalismus #Arbeit #Entlassungen

  • Uber cuts 350 employees in latest round of layoffs - CNET
    https://www.cnet.com/news/uber-layoffs-continue-this-time-350-employees-from-eats-and-self-driving-car-t


    Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi says he intends for this to be the final round of layoffs.

    OCTOBER 14, 2019, BY DARA KERR - It’s the third round in 10 weeks. This time the cuts included staff from the self-driving car and Uber Eats teams.

    Uber announced it laid off another 350 employees on Monday from several teams across the company. This is the ride-hailing service’s third round of layoffs over the past 10 weeks and brings the total number of people cut from its payroll to 1,185. Company CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said he intends for this to be Uber’s final round of layoffs.

    “Days like today are tough for us all,” Khosrowshahi wrote in an email to employees, which was first published by TechCrunch. “The [executive leadership team] and I will do everything we can to make certain that we won’t need or have another day like this ahead of us.”

    During this round of layoffs, the company cut employees from the following divisions: self-driving cars, global rides and platform, performance marketing, recruiting and Uber Eats. In the previsions two rounds, Uber laid off staff from its engineering, product and marketing teams.

    The layoffs come during a rough period for Uber as it attempts to gain footing as a public company. After debuting on Wall Street in May, the ride-hailing service has seen plummeting stock prices, quarterly revenue loss and an exodus of high-level executives. Three of Uber’s board members have stepped down since then, along with its chief operating officer and chief marketing officer.

    Khosrowshahi said that along with the layoffs on Monday, the company is also asking some staff to relocate. Those affected by this latest round of layoffs are mostly based in the US and Canada, according to TechCrunch, and represent about 1% of the company’s employees. 

    In the previous layoffs, Khosrowshahi said certain teams were oversized, which led to “overlapping work” and “mediocre results” and that his focus going forward is “lean, exceptionally high-performing teams, with clear mandates.”

    On Monday, he said Uber’s leaders have been examining their teams over the past few months to make sure they are “structured for success.”

    “This has resulted in difficult but necessary changes to ensure we have the right people in the right roles in the right locations,” Khosrowshahi said, “and that we’re always holding ourselves accountable to top performance.”

    An Uber spokesman confirmed the layoffs but declined to comment further.

    #Uber #USA #Arbeit #Entlassungen

  • Uber’s Layoff Total Rises Past 1,000 With Latest Cuts - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/technology/uber-layoffs.html

    Oct. 14, 2019, By Kate Conger - Uber announced 350 job cuts focused on its self-driving car unit, recruiting and customer support on Monday.

    SAN FRANCISCO — Uber laid off 350 employees on Monday, in the latest indication that the ride-hailing company is trying to respond to concerns among investors that it is losing too much money.

    The cuts, the third round in recent months, were focused in the autonomous vehicle unit, operations, recruiting and customer support, an Uber spokesman said. Since July, the company has cut more than 1,000 jobs, more than 2 percent of its work force.

    Shares of Uber began trading on Wall Street in May, in one of the most anticipated initial public offerings in recent years. But the stock’s performance has been disappointing, with its price down about 30 percent since the first day of trading.

    Investors reacted favorably to the layoffs on Monday, sending Uber’s share price up 4 percent in afternoon trading.

    In July, Uber laid off 400 people from its marketing department. And in September, it cut 435 people from its engineering and product groups. Uber’s chief executive, Dara Khosrowshahi, had asked executives to reduce their staffs and reorganize.

    In an email to employees announcing the latest layoffs, Mr. Khosrowshahi wrote, “We all have to play a part by establishing a new normal in how we work: identifying and eliminating duplicate work, upholding high standards for performance, giving direct feedback and taking action when expectations aren’t being met, and eliminating the bureaucracy that tends to creep as companies grow.”

    Uber’s self-driving car unit, the Autonomous Technology Group, or A.T.G., was spun out from Uber in April after a $1 billion investment from SoftBank, Toyota and the Japanese automaker Denso. The deal valued A.T.G. at $7.25 billion.

    The self-driving car unit has long been a source of controversy for the company. Anthony Levandowski, a onetime head of the unit, was charged in August with 33 counts of theft and attempted theft of trade secrets from Google. Uber also settled a lawsuit related to the theft claims with Waymo, the self-driving car unit spun out of Google.

    Mr. Khosrowshahi has been under pressure to stem financial losses after Uber’s initial public offering. In August, Uber reported a record quarterly loss of $5.2 billion while it also experienced its slowest-ever revenue growth.

    Investors have questioned the strength of Uber’s ride-hailing business, while the company has pointed to its growth in its secondary businesses, including food delivery. Last week, Uber announced its intent to acquire the grocery delivery company Cornershop.

    The company is set to report its third-quarter earnings in November.

    #Uber #USA #Arbeit #Entlassungen

    • What’s the severance pay this time??? - post regarding Uber layoffs
      https://www.thelayoff.com/t/10Zosw81s

      2 months base + equity and then another month of just base is what I heard (I left on my own in 2018). I think there was a tenure component as well.
      about a month ago by Anonymous | 2 reactions (+1/-1)
      Post ID: @10Zosw81-1wch

      ZERO.
      about a month ago by Anonymous | 4 reactions (+0/-4)
      Post ID: @10Zosw81-fbf

      Most companies provide 1 month for each year of employment.
      about a month ago by Anonymous | 1 reaction (+0/-1)
      Post ID: @10Zosw81-vyp

      #Gehalt #Abfindung

  • H-1B visa: Uber ramps up foreign-worker use amid big layoffs
    http://www.mercurynews.com/h-1b-uber-snatches-up-more-foreign-worker-visas-as-it-lays-off-hundreds
    San Francisco firm says it’s not replacing U.S. workers with H-1Bs


    MAY 10: Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi (center) joins other employees in ringing the Opening Bell at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) as the ride-hailing company Uber makes its highly anticipated initial public offering (IPO) on May 10, 2019 in New York City.

    Das hier zum Thema wie Immigration Auswirkungen auf vorhandene Arbeitsplätze hat. Bei Uber in den USA trifft es hochqualifizierte Ingenieure, die durch billig importierte Arbeitskräfte ersetzt werden. In Deutschland wird die Taxibranche durch den Einsatz von neuen Immigranten bei den Mietwagenfirmen ruiniert. Die Neuen haben vielleicht gerade einen Führerschein, wissen aber nichts vom Mindestlohn und anderen Gesetzen zu ihrem Schutz. Das ermöglicht den Mietwagenabietern, die schon illegal niedrige Bezahlung der Taxifahrer noch zu unterbieten und der Taxibranche einen weiteren Tritt in den Unterleib zu versetzen.

    Uber has doubled the number of government approvals it has received to hire foreign workers through the controversial H-1B visa this year, while laying off hundreds of skilled employees, state and federal data show.

    The San Francisco ride-hailing giant revealed in a California employment-department filing this month that it is laying off nearly 400 workers at its offices in the city and in Palo Alto. The filing showed software engineers at the firm were the hardest hit, with more than 125 people cut loose.

    Meanwhile, Uber this year received federal government approval for 299 new H-1B visas — work permits intended for jobs requiring specialized skills — compared with 152 in 2018 and 158 in 2017, according to data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It is unclear whether Uber plans to use all those visas or when new H-1B workers might be brought on. The visas typically cost thousands of dollars each to obtain.

    The maneuvers raise questions about whether the Bay Area company is moving to replace U.S. workers with cheaper foreign labor as it struggles to please Wall Street months after its much-hyped IPO.

    “When they’re laying off, they shouldn’t be using H-1Bs at all, or maybe sparingly at best,” said Ron Hira, a Howard University professor who studies the use of the visa by companies. “It runs totally contrary to the intent of the H-1B program.”

    Uber declined to answer questions in any detail about its increasing pursuit of H-1B workers at a time of significant layoffs, but a company spokesman said, “Any implication that these restructurings were done in order to replace U.S. workers with H-1B workers is simply not true.” Uber declined to say if H-1B workers were among those laid off.

    The H-1B has become a flashpoint in America’s debate over immigration. The U.S. Department of Labor specifies that the visa is intended to authorize temporary foreign labor when employers can’t otherwise obtain “needed business skills and abilities” in the U.S. workforce. Major Silicon Valley technology firms have lobbied to increase the annual 85,000 cap on new H-1B visas, arguing that they need more of them to secure the world’s top talent.

    Critics have pointed to reported abuses by outsourcing firms — including replacement of U.S. workers by H-1B holders at UC San Francisco and Disney — and contend that outsourcers, along with the tech giants, use the visas to supplant U.S. workers, cut labor costs and drive down wages.

    This year, Uber has submitted thousands of preliminary applications for more H-1B workers, two-thirds of them for software engineer jobs.

    Uber’s Sept. 10 filing with California’s employment regulator showed that it had laid off 88 workers from its San Francisco offices in August, and this month would lay off 238 more in San Francisco and 82 in its Palo Alto offices. Of the more than 125 software engineers losing jobs, more than 60 were senior software engineers, according to the filing. This week, the company said it had laid off 350 workers but declined to specify to this news organization which job types or office locations were affected.

    The layoffs in Palo Alto and San Francisco hit job types that Uber, according to the applications, is seeking to fill with foreign workers. In the first three quarters of this year, Uber filed about 1,800 preliminary applications to the Labor Department for H-1B visas for new software engineer jobs and about 1,500 for new senior software engineer jobs. The applications, filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, are a first step toward obtaining new or renewed visas, but don’t represent the number of positions to be filled.

    Immigration policy analyst David Bier of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, didn’t see evidence of H-1B abuse by Uber in its increased visa approvals and efforts to obtain more.

    “The software engineer market, it’s so saturated with H-1Bs that some of the people who are laid off are almost inevitably H-1Bs and some of the people that are being hired are inevitably H-1Bs,” Bier said. “I don’t read into it anything like this is obviously job displacement.”

    But Hira questioned why many of Uber’s applications listed the same wage level for “senior” and non-senior software engineers. He also said many of the software engineer jobs could bring lower pay than the Bay Area’s prevailing wages.

    Uber’s applications put nearly half the senior software engineer positions at the Labor Department’s “Level 2” wages, the same level it listed for more than half of the non-senior jobs: a minimum $109,242 for employment in Palo Alto and $121,077 in San Francisco.

    But the Labor Department says that a Level 3 wage should be considered for jobs with the word “senior” in the title, Hira noted. The Labor Department’s Level 3 wage for software engineers is $132,184 in Palo Alto and $147,597 in San Francisco.

    “It makes no sense that you would have a senior software engineer and a software engineer being paid at the same wage level,” Hira said.”That runs contrary to the whole point of having wage levels.”

    Hira said that applying for visas using a lower-level salary classification helps companies save money. Obtaining foreign workers at Level 2 wages allows companies to pay about 20 percent less than the average wage for their job and location, Hira said.

    “Mis-classification is very common,” Hira said. “That’s why the tech industry loves the (H-1B) program. They get to choose. There’s no check on who’s actually filling that position.”

    But an Uber spokesperson said the company takes wage obligations seriously.
    “It is our policy and practice to make these classification determinations carefully according to Department of Labor guidelines, based on the duties, knowledge, and skills that are required to perform the role,” the spokesperson said.

    Bier, of the Cato Institute, said Uber’s applications show relatively high wages. “I don’t think it’s obviously out of line with what companies are paying,” he said. “They’re certainly providing good compensation — the average H-1B is well below $100,000.”

    But Kevin Lynn, executive director of Progressives for Immigration Reform, which opposes large-scale use of foreign workers, said that although the U.S. needs skilled non-citizens in its workforce, the H-1B visa ties its holders too tightly to their employers. “This is ultimately what American companies strive for,” he said. “They want a quiescent workforce that is inexpensive and expendable.”

    Staff writer George Avalos contributed to this report.

    #Uber #USA #Arbeit #Einwanderung

  • The US military is trying to read minds

    A new #DARPA research program is developing brain-computer interfaces that could control “swarms of drones, operating at the speed of thought”. What if it succeeds?


    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614495/us-military-super-soldiers-control-drones-brain-computer-interface
    #armée #USA #Etats-Unis #drones #cerveau

    #paywall

  • Donald J. Trump sur Twitter :
    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1183822488192671745

    After defeating 100% of the ISIS Caliphate, I largely moved our troops out of Syria. Let Syria and Assad protect the Kurds and fight Turkey for their own land. I said to my Generals, why should we be fighting for Syria....

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1183822494031065088

    ....and Assad to protect the land of our enemy? Anyone who wants to assist Syria in protecting the Kurds is good with me, whether it is Russia, China, or Napoleon Bonaparte. I hope they all do great, we are 7,000 miles away!

  • Pour Julian Assange Monika Karbowska - Librairie-tropiques.over-blog.com - 14 Octobre 2019 La situation de Julian Assange, à la date du 10 octobre 2019
    http://www.librairie-tropiques.fr/2019/10/assange.html

    Pour Julian Assange et tous ceux qui osent affronter la "Bête".
    Depuis qu’il s’est avisé de révéler à la "communauté internationale" les turpitudes de toutes les classes dirigeantes qui la composent, et singulièrement ses prétendus "démocrates" donneurs de leçons, du genre de ceux qui ont dévasté le monde ces dernières années ( voir : "la stratégie du chaos" ), et non plus seulement les croquemitaines qui leurs servent commodément d’exutoire, Julian Assange n’est plus (du tout) en odeur de sainteté parmi les médias "de référence" et l’appareil idéologique qu’ils servent, de FOX News à France Television, en passant Le Monde, le New-York Times, Libération, CNN, Mediapart et le Figaro.
    
Désormais, les "lanceurs d’alerte" sont vivement incités à remiser leurs sifflets, sauf si c’est pour siffler la mi-temps et protéger l’appareil d’État en alimentant l’enfumage généralisé qui le pérennise (voir dernièrement à ce propos : Eleanor Goldfield ou le reportage de Vincent Lenormant sur les "démocrates radicaux" qui ont maintenant la faveur de cet appareil idéologique).

    Aujourd’hui au déni de justice, au droit bafoué, risque fort de s’ajouter un crime d’État, qui ne semble pourtant guère émouvoir notre (go)gauche morale et ses "intellectuels d’influence", et pas davantage les donneurs de leçon, ordinairement si prompts à farouchement dénoncer les atteintes aux droits de l’homme (et du citoyen)...

    En pratique...

    La situation de Julian Assange, à la date du 10 octobre 2019
    
Julian Assange n’est pas en bonne santé, son moral n’est pas bon.

    Il est détenu à Belmarsh dans une cellule individuelle dans l’unité médicale dont il ne sort qu’une heure ou deux par jour.

    Il peut recevoir des visites :
- il rencontre ses avocats plusieurs fois par semaine et a accès régulièrement à eux.
- il peut également recevoir des visites de ses proches trois fois par semaine.

    Les visites de ses avocats comme celles de ses proches sont en "principe" privées.

    Il peut recevoir du courrier et en reçoit beaucoup, mais tout est lu dans les 2 sens.
On peut lui écrire et il peut correspondre si on lui envoie une enveloppe timbrée
avec adresse du destinataire.

    Pour lui rendre visite :
    Julian doit d’abord en faire la demande
et inscrire le nom sur une liste de "visiteurs
Ensuite, il faut en faire la demande à la prison ;
cela peut prendre deux semaines pour obtenir l’autorisation de la prison.
La demande doit mentionner le nom du visiteur, sa date de naissance,
son numéro de téléphone, son adresse, deux preuves de résidence.
Et montrer sa carte d’identité ou son passeport le jour de la visite.
Donc :
1) lui écrire pour lui proposer de lui rendre visite
2) attendre sa réponse
3) celle-ci reçue, faire une demande de visite à la prison.

    Julian a accès depuis peu à un ordinateur fourni par la prison, mais pas à internet.
Julian a toujours son passeport australien et n’est donc pas apatride.

    Historique des faits.
    Julian Assange était détenu depuis le 11 avril (date de son arrestation) pour avoir violé les termes de sa mise en liberté sous caution lorsqu’il est allé se réfugier à l’Ambassade de l’Equateur en 2012. 

    Pour cette violation mineure il a avait été condamné à 50 semaines de réclusion, ce qui était pratiquement la peine maximale (1 an).
Ses avocats avaient fait appel contre cette condamnation, mais comme le tribunal a traîné pour nommer un juge pour entendre l’appel et que ce dernier étai hostile à Julian, ses avocats ont retiré leur appel.

    D’autant que, passé la moitié de cette peine, il devait être libéré pour bon comportement.

    Le 22 septembre dernier, le tribunal en a jugé autrement...

    Alors qu’il aurait du être libéré sous caution en attendant le déroulement de la procédure judiciaire relative à sa demande d’extradition, le juge a décidé de le maintenir en détention provisoire,
rejetant préemptivement la mise en liberté sous caution - avant même que Julian n’en ait fait la demande.

    Le juge a argué du fait que vu que Julian Assange avait violé les conditions de sa liberté sous caution en 2012 en se réfugiant à l’Ambassade d’Equateur, sa parole n’avait pas de valeur car s’il était libéré, il risquerait probablement de s’enfuir de nouveau.

    Le juge n’a envisagé aucune mesure alternative permettant à Julian Assange de recouvrer au moins une semi-liberté, confirmant le parti pris évident de la justice britannique dans son cas.

    Tous les documents personnels de Julian Assange, ont été saisis à l’ambassade par le gouvernement de l’équateur puis remis avec le département américain de la justice.
L’avocat de Julian Assange en Équateur a reçu fin septembre une notification officielle de la justice équatorienne l’informant que le gouvernement équatorien remettrait le contenu des ordinateurs de Julian
(saisis arbitrairement par l’Ambassade équatorienne lors de son arrestation) au ministère de la Justice des États-Unis le 2 octobre 2019.

    Ce fait est confirmé de source officielle équatorienne.
C’est une nouvelle violation flagrante de son droit à la vie privée
Articles

    12 de la Déclaration universelle ;
    17 de la Convention internationale sur les droits civils et politiques ;
    11 de la Convention interaméricaine sur les droits de l’homme,auxquelles est tenu l’Equateur, mais le gouvernement actuel, dans la main des Etats-Unis,n’en a cure.
    Les documents saisis contiennent tout ce dont disposait Julian Assange à l’Ambassade depuis 2012 (ordinateurs, disques durs, carnets de notes, manuscrits, y compris ses notes d’entretien avec ses avocats quant à la préparation de sa défense).

    Remettre ces documents au gouvernement qui le persécute et cherche à le juger revient à mettre Julian Assange à la merci de ses futurs juges.

    Au vu de la saisie des documents personnels de Julian Assange et leur mise
à la disposition de la justice américaine, sans aucune procédure pour ce faire,
le Rapporteur spécial sur la vie privée Joseph Cannataci est intervenu
plusieurs fois auprès des Equatoriens, en privé et publiquement,
pour leur demander de remettre ces documents à ses ayants droits.
Sans succès.

    Du côté des Nations Unies, les 4 rapporteurs spéciaux (experts indépendants) qui se sont prononcés sur le cas de Julian Assange poursuivent leurs efforts, dans le cadre limité qui est le leur :

    le Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire,qui continue de demander sa libération ;

    Le rapporteur spécial sur la torture (Nils Melzer)

    Le rapporteur spécial sur le droit à la vie privée (Joseph Cannataci)

    Le rapporteur spécial sur les défenseurs des droits de l’homme (Michel Forst)

    Leur action se poursuit sur trois niveaux :
    – niveau diplomatique : le Rapporteur Spécial sur la torture a écrit
aux gouvernements suédois, britannique, US et équatorien,
arguant du fait que leur action conjuguée,
publique et juridique constitue une forme de torture psychologique incompatible
avec leurs engagements internationaux en vertu des conventions ratifiées
(Convention sur les droits civils et politiques et convention contre la torture).

    La Suède, les Etats-Unis et l’Equateur ont répondu par écrit.
Le Royaume Uni vient finalement de répondre à l’intervention (la semaine dernière)
du Rapporteur Spécial sur la torture ;

    Les lettres du Rapporteur Spécial et les réponses des 3 gouvernements sont
publiques (elles deviennent publiques automatiquement après 60 jours).
Donc à ce jour les 4 gouvernements ont répondu et les lettres de Nils Melzer
et leurs réponses sont publiques.
    – niveau juridique à travers la défense organisée par Gareth Peirce.

    Toujours au niveau juridique, une injonction du droit international des droits de l’homme et du droit européen des droits de l’homme lors de la défense de Julian Assange est indispensable.
La question est comment y procéder de la manière la plus efficace.
    – au niveau public : le Rapporteur Spécial sur la torture continue de s’exprimer publiquement comme en témoignent ses interviews aux différents médias afin de maintenir une mobilisation publique.

    La première audience d’extradition serait prévue en février 2020.


    Quand le sort d’un homme se joue aux dés 
Julian Assange jugé le 11 octobre 2019
    WikiJustice Julian Assange - Vendredi 11 octobre 2019
    Monika Karbowska

    Comme le 20 septembre 2019 son nom figurait en premier des jugés pour être extradés, mais c’est parce qu’il commence à la lettre A et que la liste des 21 hommes, majoritairement Polonais et Roumains et d’une femme azerbaidjanaise, est alphabétique. A la Westminster Magistrate Court, ce 11 octobre 2019, le greffier et le secrétaire du greffe préparait la séance dans la petite salle numéro 3 alors que le public a vite rempli les dix chaises réservées derrière la vitre. Julian Assange figurait donc à la séance du jour parmi les migrants d’Europe de l’Est vivant en Grande Bretagne et réclamés par la justice de leur pays à grand renfort de Mandats d’Arrêt Européens. Comme sur la liste du 20 septembre, certains des prolétaires accusés de vols, escroqueries ou autre bagarres et délit de pauvres étaient aussi menacés d’être livrés aux USA. Et Julian Assange est sur la même liste. Etrange sensation de le savoir en compagnie du prolétariat européen le plus vulnérable, le moins conscient de ses droits, le moins politisé. Mais ce jour-là, après toutes les avanies de cette justice expéditive ou l’on juge les hommes en leur absence, les militants de l’Association Wikijustice, ne s’attendaient même pas à le voir comparaitre.

    Notre soucis était de savoir si un minimum de défense serai présent pour lui, contrairement au 20 septembre dernier. Les dix places du public ont été vite remplies par Wikijustice et par les membres du comité de soutien britannique. Andrej Hunko, député de die Linke, était également présent dans le public, lui le combattant de longue date pour la justice en Europe, notamment pour une enquête internationale indépendante sur l’assassinat de 100 personnes brulées vives dans la Maison des Syndicat à Odessa le 2 mai 2014 au cours du Maidan ukrainien. Les familles des autres prévenus ont du hélas se contenter de places debout. Malheureusement, pour leurs hommes comme pour Julian Assange, la justice britannique fut rapide, sèche et dénuée de la moindre analyse.

    Madame Emma Arbuthnot, juge et présidente du tribunal a pris place à l’estrade et nous nous sommes tous levés. Le greffier lui a présenté le plan de travail. Julian Assange figurait sur la liste comme le numéro 11, mais finalement c’est dans un ordre tout à fait différent que les « cas », les hommes, ont été présentés à la juge. Le secrétaire du greffe commença par le cas numéro 16, et après avoir dit son nom à haute voix, appela le prévenu polonais de la prison de Belmarsh après avoir actionné la vidéo. Sur l’écran apparait alors un gardien qui affirme que M. K. est trop malade pour comparaitre ce jour-là. Et c’est tout. Terrible justice dématérialisée ou l’étrange comparution en vidéo déporte le tribunal ipso facto en prison et nous ramène vers une forme d’ancien régime, tellement le détenu est devenu immatériel, caché, inaccessible.
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    Madame la juge se lève alors et nous nous levons car elle sort de la salle. Nous croyons à une pause et nous apprêtons à discuter de ce que nous avons vu. Mais le greffier annonce que le cas de Julian Assange est discuté. Nous nous levons car un autre juge, un homme de 45 ans, arrive. Et la sinistre farce politique peut commencer. La vidéo s’anime et Julian Assange apparait devant nos yeux. Il s’assied sur une chaise dans un espèce de box ou un petit local avec des cadres derrière lui comme des miroirs sans teints. Il parait amaigri, en s’asseyant il se crispe nerveusement sur la chaise, une jambe posée sur l’autre, les bras croisés, les mains cachées, repliées. Il porte une longue barbe et des cheveux longs gris et blancs, le même sweat-shirt bleu délavé et ce même pantalon gris que sur la vidéo de Wandsworth d’avril et fuitée en mai. J’ai l’impression qu’il a froid et il fait froid en cette matinée humide d’automne à Londres.

    Je ne peux m’empêcher de me demander si quelqu’un lui a quand même fourni des vêtements ou de l’argent pour en acheter à l’intérieur de la prison, des produits de première nécessité auxquels tout être humain a droit, même enfermé. Je me remémore mon voyage d’hier à la prison de Belmarsh ou les gardiens du « visitor center » ont refusé de certifier s’il avait bien reçu nos colis avec les chaussettes chaudes. C’est bouleversant de le voir ainsi et je pense alors que nos chaussettes envoyées ne sont pas superflues.

    Julian Assange dit juste une phrase, « Paul Julian Assange » et sa date de naissance. Puis il garde jusqu’au bout un air absent. Il est légèrement penché en avant, le regard fixant le sol, comme s’il refusait de participer à cette mascarade. Nous ne savons pas exactement ce qu’il peut voir de la salle, probablement uniquement son avocate, l’accusation au premier rang, le greffier et le juge. Nous ne le voyons pas en entier, la caméra le coupant à la taille. Justement son avocate, Gareth Peirce est là, arrivée à 10h mais absente de la salle pendant la présentation des autres cas. Elle dialogue avec le juge, cela dure quelques minutes. Il me frappe qu’elle ne regarde pas Julian Assange. Elle ne se tourne pas une seule fois vers la vidéo et il n’y a entre eux aucun regard ni signe de connivence. On a l’impression d’assister à une pièce de théâtre dont tous les acteurs connaissent le jeu, les ficelles du jeu et naturellement le dénouement de l’intrigue. Normal, ils se connaissent tous car ils jouent dans la même troupe du système judiciaire alors que nous assistons à la comédie humaine en spectateurs impuissants. Mais il s’agit d’un homme dont le sort se joue à pile ou à face… Nous comprenons que Gareth Peirce demande la comparution physique de Julian Assange au tribunal la semaine prochaine, le 21 octobre. Ce n’est pas une mauvaise idée, mais je pensais, suite à nos consultations juridiques avec les avocats spécialisés dans l’extradition, qu’à cette audience du 11 octobre seraient présentés les arguments de la défense et que le « management hearing » de la semaine suivante sert à lister les arguments des deux parties, défense et accusation. Puis le juge a 3 semaines pour trancher. Justement l’accusation est bien présente à l’audience en la personne d’une femme élégante qui parle en dernier, assise juste à côté de Gareth Peirce. Après l’audience elle m’explique qu’elle est la « request barrister », l’avocate de la « partie adverse », c’est-à-dire, me dit-elle, qu’elle défend les intérêts américains. Obligeamment elle me donne son nom,Clair Dobbin. Son CV fourni apparait immédiatement sur internet, et je remarque que ses bureaux d’avocat sont situés dans le même bâtiment que ceux de Matrix Chambers, le cabinet de barristers 1 dont l’un, Mark Summers, avait lu la fameuse lettre d’excuses de Julian Assange lors de l’audience du 2 mai.

    Le juge finit en demandant d’une voix forte à Gareth Peirce : pas « d’application » aujourd’hui ? Pas de requête, de demande de libération sous caution ? Non. Gareth Peirce, l’avocate de Julian Assange ne demande rien. Elle veut que tout se joue le 21 octobre. Son client fixe le sol de la prison et on ne sait s’il entend et comprend, ni s’il est d’accord. C’est fini. Le juge sort, nous nous levons et nous sortons dans le couloir ou se joue le reste de la comédie humaine et politique.

    Le 21 octobre ou le 18 octobre sont évoqués à l’audience. Nous savons maintenant qu’il faut nous précipiter au secrétariat du tribunal pour demander la confirmation des dates. Revenez demain, nous ne les avons pas encore dans l’ordinateur. Gareth Peirce reste un moment seule dans le couloir, à l’écart des Anglais des comités de soutien et des journalistes. Je me présente et je lui demande si je peux lui demander des explications. Elle commence à me parler, mais déjà le secrétaire du greffe la sollicite. Elle me propose de parler avec son assistante et le suit.

    Le 21 octobre une partie, ou tous les dés seront jetés.

    Que faire pour renforcer la défense de Julian Assange avant qu’il ne soit trop tard ?
    1- Dans le système anglais il existe une hiérarchie entre les avocats – les sollicitors sont les avocats en contact avec le clients qui peuvent plaider devant les tribunaux de première instance, les Magistrate Court. Mais pour aller à la Crown Court, tribunal de seconde instance il doivent louer les services d’avocats plus spécialisés, les barrister. Jennifer Robinson et Mark Summers ont été les barristers de Julian Assange alors que Gareth Peirce est son sollicitor.
    Monika Kabrowska

    Pour celles et ceux qui veulent écrire à la cour. Voici l’adresse, ainsi que le numéro de dossier de Julian Assange

    N°dossier European Arrest Warrant
AM 131226-10 :
N°dossier RCJ CO/1925/2011

    Mr/Mrs Président Magistrate of Westminster Court
181 Marylebone Road
London
    ECRIVEZ A JULIAN ASSANGE. WRITE TO JULIAN ASSANGE

    Julian Assange, éditeur de wikileaks. Participez à notre campagne de lettres de masse. Inondons la prison de Belmarsh de messages de soutien !

    Si vous pouvez joindre une photo d’actions ou le descriptif d’une action, ce n’est que mieux (une lettre envoyée à un parlementaire ou un ministre par exemple)
    Mr. Julian Assange (A 93 79 AY)
HMP Belmarsh
Western Way
London SE28 0EB
UK

    Il faut préciser son nom et son adresse complète au dos de l’enveloppe sinon le courrier n’est pas distribué.
Joindre enveloppes, papiers et timbres pour la réponse.

    Si le numéro d’écrou n’est pas mentionné, le courrier n’est pas distribué.
Pour ceux qui veulent s’inscrire pour téléphoner ou envoyer un mail, il faut s’inscrire sur ce site.
Le numéro d’écrou doit être mentionné sans espace : A9379AY
www.emailaprisoner.com

    Association WIKIJUSTICE JULIAN ASSANGE
    2 rue Frédéric Scheider, 75018 Paris
    Présidente Véronique Pidancet Barrière
    wikijusticejulianassange@gmail.com

     #assange #julian_assange #angleterre #prison #tribunal #justice #surveillance #nsa #etats-unis #en_vedette #activisme #usa #pouvoirs #politique #equateur #actualités_internationales #wikileaks #lanceurs_d'alerte #lanceur_d'alerte #répression #prison #prisons