Mediaboss Marketing

The recent decision by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to authorize Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to investigate alleged war crimes in Afghanistan includes allegations that U.S. personnel committed torture when interrogating prisoners there and in other ICC member countries. The prosecutor has identified the potential defendants as CIA and Department of Defense (DOD) officials who devised, authorized, or oversaw the interrogations. Whether those officials are ultimately charged will likely turn on whether they had the required criminal intent or whether they justifiably relied in good faith on assurances by the Justice Department that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques they participated in were lawful.

Article 30 of the ICCs Rome Statute requires that the defendant had the mental state of intent and knowledge. Article 32 acknowledges that some mistakes of law may negate that mental state. Therefore, U.S. personnel who relied on the Department of Justices (DOJs) legal advice may not be criminally responsible even if that advice turned out to be wrong.

This notion of reliance in good faith to negate criminal responsibility is not new. The U.S. Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, adopted by a vote of 90-9 in the Senate, provides that:

it shall be a defense that such officer, employee, member of the Armed Forces, or other agent did not know that the practices were unlawful and a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful. Good faith reliance on advice of counsel should be an important factor, among others, to consider in assessing whether a person of ordinary sense and understanding would have known the practices to be unlawful.

In 2009, President Barack Obama said that it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder later affirmed that the Department of Justice will not prosecute anyone who acted in good faith and within the scope of the legal guidance given by the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the interrogation of detainees. And the Senates May 2018 confirmation of Gina Haspel as CIA director was an implicit endorsement of her explanation that CIA personnel involved with the detention and interrogation program relied on legal guidance, and adhered to it in good faith.

CIA Reliance on Legal Guidance

When CIA Director George Tenet was first presented with a proposal to use enhanced interrogation techniques in April 2002, he did what international humanitarian law wants a superior to do: he asked if it was legal. Despite intense pressure to prevent a second attack on the United States after 9/11, Tenet waited four months for DOJ to answer that question. He authorized the use of proposed interrogation techniques only after he was assured that they were legal. During the next two years, whenever any doubt was raised over the legality of those techniques, Tenet said the CIA would not continue using the techniques unless DOJ found them to be legal. In each instance, DOJ affirmed the techniques legality.

The original advice of DOJ attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee that the techniques were legal was reaffirmed, in one form or another, throughout Tenets tenure by DOJ attorneys Jack Goldsmith, Daniel Levin and Steven Bradbury, and consistently supported by Attorney General John Ashcroft. Ashcroft briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. They endorsed the techniques. President George W. Bush wrote in his book that he, too, approved the interrogation techniques.

Of course, a defendant cannot claim to have relied on DOJ advice if he knew DOJ was misled or if he authorized or condoned interrogation techniques materially different than those approved by DOJ. The Senate Intelligence Committees 2014 report claims that the CIAs use of enhanced interrogation techniques in the field diverged from what the CIA requested to use and later reported to DOJ. To overcome the defense of good faith reliance on DOJ opinions, the ICC prosecutor will have to examine such claims as to each potential defendant, as well as whether the acts known to that defendant were so egregious that a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know the practices were unlawful, despite the legal advice.

Not Yet Tested at the ICC

Although good faith reliance on advice of counsel is a well-established defense in American criminal law, it has not yet been tested at the ICC. The advice at issue in the Afghanistan investigation context was that the enhanced interrogation techniques should not result in the infliction of severe pain. The ICC statutes accompanying list of elements of crimesprovides thatit is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator intended that the pain would be severe. However, the ICC will likely not be prosecuting the actual persons who inflicted the pain, but rather higher-level officials. So any prosecution of top officials would have to be brought under a theory of co-perpetration, which requires that the remote defendant had to be aware that his conduct would bring about the elements of the war crime of torture, which includes the infliction of severe pain.

Now that the Appeals Chamber has settled the question of jurisdiction, the criminal intent issue appears to be the ICC prosecutors greatest obstacle in bringing charges against U.S. personnel.

The ICC also has a requirement to ensure that it is the court of last resort (admissibility). It can only bring charges where national authorities are unwilling or unable to prosecute the case themselves (complementarity) and where the crimes are sufficiently important (gravity). Since the United States has decided not to prosecute those who devised, authorized, or oversaw the interrogations, the defendants cannot benefit from complementarity. And the ICCs bar for gravity has been set very low in the recent Appeals Chamber decision in the Al Hassan case, likely dooming the argument that the number of torture victims is too few for the ICC.

Bensouda already has shown her willingness to assign some of her limited resources to investigating those crimes. Having devoted those resources, she or her successor would not, in the end, decline to bring charges against U.S. personnel simply for fear of alienating the United States and its allies or because the defendants may not be easily arrested. While U.S. nationals accused at the ICC may never be arrested unless they travel to an ICC member country, threats and bluster by a U.S. administration will not deter the prosecutor from seeking an arrest warrant. It also is unlikely that the fractured United Nations Security Council will bail out the United States by ordering the Afghanistan investigation be deferred, as it has the power to do under Article 16 of the ICC Statute, or outright ban prosecution of non-party nationals, as proposed by Senator Ted Cruz.

Instead, if charges are not brought at the ICC, it will likely be based on the inability to establish the criminal intent of those U.S. officials most responsible for the enhanced interrogation techniques.

Original post:
ICC Afghanistan Torture Investigation Likely to Turn on Criminal Intent - Just Security

Scammers are everywhere during the coronavirus, experts are warning. But theyre not just after your bank account or personal information. Theyre after your vote.

For the Democratic Party, theres plenty of upside to a crisis like this one. The lockdown may not thrill most Americans, but for DNC headquarters, its an unexpected gift. After years of trying to relax the election process, the coronavirus is giving them the perfect scenario to push for the kind of nationwide system thats ripe for abuse: mail-in ballots.

In a recent interview, former attorney general Eric Holder didnt even try to hide his partys motives. Coronavirus,"he told Time magazine, "gives us an opportunity to revamp our electoral system so that itpermanentlybecomes more inclusive Of course, inclusivity is code for doing away with safeguards like voter ID laws and other checks and balances that keep our elections honest. This is the time, he argued, to demand a sea change in voting systems. But a sea change is what every democracy-loving American should be worried about.

The cast of characters behind the push should tell voters everything they need to know about its intentions. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are all throwing their weight behind a system that would make the 2020 election completely mail-dependent. In states like Texas, the Democratic Party is already filing lawsuits against state election officials to force the idea. The chairman of the GOP there, James Dickey, has vowed to fight the movement, insisting that Republicans will continue to vigorously oppose any intent by the Democrats to expose voters to increased error and fraud.

President Trump is equally disturbed by the Democrats insistence that we turn the electoral system upside down. Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to statewide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it,"Mr. Trump tweeted on April 8. "Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesnt work out well for Republicans. Obviously, he said, Absentee Ballots are a great way to vote for the many senior citizens, military, and others who cant get to the polls on Election Day, he tweeted. These ballots are very different from 100% Mail-In Voting, which is "RIPE for FRAUD and shouldnt be allowed!

As some experts have pointed out, plenty of things can go wrong when voters have to depend on the postal service. For one, Mail voting doesnt work well for everyone. Some Americans live in places with unreliable mail service, may not have a fixed address to receive mail, or change addresses frequently, which can lead to issues regarding getting materials on time. Then, theres the matter of ballot harvesting, which gives people the right to collect and deliver other voters ballots. The dangers in that,as Californians found out in 2018, are too numerous to count. Once these intermediaries get their hands on someone elses ballot, they could decide not deliver it or manipulate it in some way before they do. Either way, its a huge risk.

FRC Actions Brent Keilen has been following the debate, especially on the state level, where several primaries have been affected. Its literally changing by the day right now, he warned. And while the presidential primaries are mostly over, the focus now is on the federal races in the states. We have about 40 states still to go, because so many of these laws have been pushed down the road. And now, were seeing states like [Virginia] where Governor [Ralph] Northam (D) is starting to change not just their primary election laws to get past COVID-19 situation here and get this into the summer theyre actually starting to change the fall general election laws as well.

Weve had Democrats at the national level pushing some ideas, such as you mentioned, getting rid of voter ID laws, going to potentially all mail-in ballots as opposed to having [in-person voting] and number of other things. And while a lot of political experts agree that voter participation would go up with a mail-in ballot system, the question is: Who knows if theyre actually being cast by the actual person who got the ballot? Thats why the safeguards at the polling station are so important.

And its not as if showing an ID is a hardship. We all have to show our ID get on an airplane, cash a check, and a whole host of other things. So why shouldnt you have to show an ID to prove that youre voting as the person you say you are? The only reason, everyone knows, is to open up the system to abuse. Obviously, we want to make sure everybody is safe in these elections, Brent agreed, and we dont want it to be hard to vote but we do want it to be hard to cheat. And we know cheating is a real thing. This is not something thats made up. We have a lot of actual [data]. Back in 2012, Pew research found that as many as one in eight voter registration were outdated or wrong And remember, a lot of these races are being decided by very close margins. So it doesnt take that much fraud to swing some of these states.

What can you do? Well, for starters, you can pay close attention to whats happening in your state. There are websites likeHonestElections.organdTrueTheVote.orgwho are devoted to the integrity of the process. Were a long way off from the November election, but the groundwork for changing the process is being laid now. Make sure youre informed.

Originally published here.

The street was a sea of debris. To any passerby, it wouldve looked like a bomb had exploded. In the shadow of jagged buildings, where entire walls had come tumbling down, the ground was a pile of rubble, bricks, and shattered glass. The riots are over for now. But in Delhi, where the mosques are stillcharred and smeared with blood, no one is under any illusions. Even in lockdown, there is persecution around every corner.

For any country, the coronavirus is a major challenge. But for places like India, the crisis is a just another excuse to trample people. Poor families, who were already shunned and marginalized by society, are facing a virtual death sentence not because of the outbreak, but because the government is using the situation to block them from food and supplies. Since India ordered people inside two weeks ago, families in some villages have been completely cut off from groceries, medicine, and other essentials. "Weve been locked up here, like prisoners,"a pregnant mom nearly cried. "We live near a milk factory, and there is not a drop of milk for my children to drink. We are called dirty, and they say we spread the disease. But the disease is the least of her worries. Starvation isnt.

For Christians, the abuse has taken a different form. Open Doors David Curry has heard from sources on the ground that the government is ramping up what he calls cultural persecution. Christians, he warns, are being put on the front lines with the most contagious, because theyre considered expendable. In a country with justone doctor for every 1,457 Indians, the gaps in care are huge. And while Christians are usually the first to volunteer to serve, but in this crisis, the government didnt give them a choice. They were sent, FRCs Arielle Del Turco pointed out, because of their faith, and because they hold such a marginalized status in that society.

Whats worse, David warns, is that theyre being exposed without proper care. Like a lot of organizations, his is desperately trying to get masks and other equipment into the hands of the medical workers, but still, he says, we need to draw attention to the religious undertones of this tragedy. And in contrast to countries like the United States, where people on the front lines are treated like heroes, Indias doctors, nurses, and helpers are being driven out of their apartments or attacked on the streets. After working long, harrowing shifts in the virus wards, some health workers are coming home to no home at all. They asked us to vacate without any notice,"one young physiciansaid. [They] said we were dirty. Most doctors are now on the streets and have nowhere to go.

Unfortunately, Arielle explained on "Washington Watch, all of this just reflects larger societal issues in India where a lot of people are still considered unclean. And thats just the legacy of a detrimental caste system thats been really harmful for human rights. And we see Christians [fall] victim [to] this, because they are often among the lowest caste members. Its stunning when you consider that India is the worlds largest democracy. And although the state isnt necessarily responsible for all of the increased hostility and violence directed at religious minorities, its certainly not doing anything to stop it.

Instead of stepping in to protect their citizens, theyre turning a blind eye to the ticking time bomb of the Hindu nationalist movement which insists that to be Indian is to be Hindu. Obviously, Arielle said, that leaves other religious minorities, including Christians and Muslims, in a marginalized place. And [its] inspiring not just persecution from the government but persecution from mob violence. The reports of pastorsbeing run over in the streetsor beaten with chains are almost commonplace. At the very least, the virus has hopefully isolated them from some of the threats, but whatever relief there is will be temporary.

Their hope, like so many others, is in nations like America, whose leadershave the leverageto pressure Indias government to take the persecution more seriously. [India] does want to maintain a friendship with the United States, Arielle agreed, so hopefully their leadership is going to be a little [more receptive to] what America has to say in terms of their human rights standards. [W]e should be encouraging our allies to share our core values. [And] one of our core values in this country is religious freedom. The coronavirus doesnt change that. If anything, it only makes our pleas more urgent.

Originally published here.

There are some benefits to being stuck at home, YouVersion is reporting. For one, people have more time to read. And what theyre reading, surveys say, is important. Turns out, the best-selling book in history the Bible is also the most popular one right now. Since Palm Sunday, the app found, Bible reading was a whopping 54 percent higher than last years holy week. All of this,"a spokesman said, "on the heels of a record-breaking month.

March 2020, they announced, was the number one month in Bible app history setting new highs for users, verse shares, Bible searches, audio plays, and video plays. All in all, the good news of coronavirusisthe Good News!

Now that more people are getting reacquainted with the Bible or introduced for the very first time a lot of experts wonder what the impact will be. In a new survey by Pew Research, Americans still seem very divided on what the role of Scripture should be especially in American policy. Asked whether the Bible should influence U.S. laws, half (49 percent) of the country said yes, including 23 percent who thought it should have a great deal. But then, there are also people who strongly object to the idea, like atheists, agnostics, or religious nones.

Of course, the reality is, the Bibles morality already informs U.S. law whether Americans like it or not. Civil government cant exist in a vacuum. Since the founding of this nation, our framers relied on Gods law to create our own. Theres clearly a deep-rooted history of the Christian religion in America society. It is, as FRCs David Closson pointed out on Wednesdays Washington Watch, part of our DNA.

That aside, when you break the Pew numbers down, there are some very interesting correlations. Obviously, the split down the middle on the Bibles role points straight to the worldview divide we see in the country. Its what we see in every election, every public policy debate. Its the undercurrent of every conflict we have in our culture today.

But there are also some interesting alliances. Eighty-nine percent of white evangelicals said the Bible should have a great deal or some influence on U.S. lives. Thats nine out of 10. And when you look at black Protestants, its 76 percent. In fact, theyre the next highest category of people who believe the Bible should have influence on our culture and our laws. In all honesty, I think the media and liberal politicians try to keep white and black Christians apart. Theyre constantly seeding the ground with controversy and driving wedges between them because they have a very similar worldview based on Scripture. And they understand what could happen on social policy if those two groups joined forces.

The other aspect to consider is age. The older Americans are, the more impact they want Gods word to have. On the other side of the ledger, the majority of 18 to 29-year-olds believe it shouldnt have much at all. That, in my view, is the clearest indication of a public education system thats been completely hijacked by the Left. Liberal academia has rewritten American history, pushed religion out of schools, and stigmatized self-identifying Christians. And for moms and dads, it ought to be a wake-up call that theyre not going to get any help from the culture raising their kids in the faith.

Its up to Christian parents to be the disciple makers in their home, David agreed, because if theyre not going to do it, the younger generation is simply not going to learn about the biblical foundations of this country [or], even broader, the biblical foundation of their faith and even the gospel. This poll suggests that a lot of families arent taking that role seriously and parents need to. Ultimately, were going to be held accountable to God for what our children learn. And its up to us to make sure that theyre being taught what the Bible says and how it applies to their lives and the culture.

If you need a way to jumpstart that process, join FRC'stwo-year Bible reading plan. Its never too late to jump right in. And, if you want to maximize that reading, we can point you in the right direction! Check out the FRC Blog for Ways to Read the Bible, PartsOne,Two, andThree.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.

More here:
Tony Perkins: The Election's in the Mail? - Patriot Post

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Well, folks, this is the year.

2020 will go down in history either as the year that every vote counted and was counted, or the year we royally screwed up.

Many of you are being misguided into thinking that this year is the year of the East Coast Rumblers, the year of Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump.

Dont be fooled, however, because so very much is at stake.

On Thursday morning, for example, Mayor Muriel Bowser held a press conference to encourage D.C. citizens to vote in the upcoming June presidential primary and special election, and again in the November presidential election, among other issues. But the D.C. Board of Elections blew it.

After following the mayors lead, an elections official explained the ins and outs, and the ups and downs about the need for voters to seek and deliver absentee ballots due to the COVID-19 scare.

So, the city wants registered voters to request an absentee ballot, await the arrival of an absentee ballot and deliver an absentee ballot.

But beware: There are electronic glitches already in the electronic voting system.

Android phones and the D.C. voting system cant shake hands, and, even if youre using an iPhone, voters might not receive proof from the elections board that it has received your request let alone your vote.

Its like the voting system is social distancing itself doing the chicken wing-like elbow-to-elbow greeting.

Thursdays presser proved that yet again the D.C. government isnt ready for 21st century voting.

In February, it sent voter-registration mailers to voters that were printed with the incorrect date for the presidential primary. The correct date is Tuesday, June 2.

That embarrassment wasnt the first, though. In 2012, a man who wasnt then-Attorney General Eric Holder almost got his hands on Mr. Holders ballot because of several foul-ups, including the failure of poll workers to ask the man for ID proving he was, in fact, Eric Holder.

(Ive never been asked to show ID or a voter-registration card at the D.C. polls.)

Which brings up back to another concern the candidates. Dont be fooled by the Pete Buttigiegs and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes and Elizabeth Warrens, politicos capable of selling snake oil as cures for the coronavirus.

There are two questions, at the very least, that voters must consider before they vote: Who are the candidates and will every vote be counted?

I Voted stickers answer neither question.

Deborah Simmons can be contacted at [emailprotected]

Visit link:
Will every vote count and be counted? - Washington Times

In an upcoming documentary, gang members reveal they believe slain rapper Nipsey Hussle was murdered and should have known he wasnt untouchable.

Last March, Hussle born Ermais Asghedom died after being shot outside of his Los Angeles clothing store. Eric Holder was arrested for the slaying and indicted on one count of murder, two counts of attempted murder and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon by a grand jury.

He has also since been indicted on two additional counts of assault with a firearm and is set to go on trial next month.

In a new BBC Three documentary, The Mysterious Murder Of Nipsey Hussle, filmmaker Ben Zand attempts to uncover the truth about his murder, through a series of interviews with everyone from LAPD officers to former gang members.

READ MORE: Eric Holder could go on trial for Nipsey Hussles murder soon

Nipsey was stupid, he was stupid, said Eight-Tray gang member Sedrick, who also runs a book and herbs shop, said. He didnt have, his gang didnt protect him and they wasnt going to protect him when he got that money.

He goes on to opine that Hussle should have never been outside his store without protection on the day of the shooting. Sedrick noted that the entrepreneurs fame and wealth made him an obvious target.

READ MORE: Ava DuVernay to direct Netflixs newly acquired film about Nipsey Hussles life

Its too risky, theres too many dudes that arent gonna like you Nipsey for one, he should have never been at that store without security. He thought he was untouchable.

The film also reveals that pre-trial hearing transcripts include allegations that right before Hussle was shot, he accused his suspected killer Eric Holder of being a snitch and working with the police. In fact, the word snitch which is considered a serious verbal slight in gang culture is mentioned 24 times.

READ MORE: Nipsey Hussle set to receive star-studded tribute during 2020 Grammy Awards

When asked if calling someone a snitch is really serious enough to warrant being shot, Sedrick confirmed, Thats the worst thing you can say, adding, You gotta go kill that n***** man, Ill call you if you call me a snitch and I aint a snitch.

Its the equivalent of being called a child molester, thats the level thats on, his fellow gang member chimed in.

Excerpt from:
Nipsey Hussle doc suggests he was murdered because he 'forgot the rules' - TheGrio

Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) is drawing a line in the sand when it comes to facial recognition technology. On Friday, the company announced it was divesting its stake in a facial recognition start-up and vowed to no longer make minority investments in the area.

Through its M12 venture fund, the software giantannounced over the weekendthat it and AnyVision, an Israeli-based facial recognition start-up, will part ways, with Microsoft divesting its stake in the company.

IMAGE SOURCE: GETTY IMAGES.

AnyVision has been mired in controversy since October, whenNBC News reportedthe start-up was using facial recognition technology to surveil Palestinians living in the West Bank. Microsoft drew criticism for taking part in AnyVision's Series Afundraising round in June, where it raised $74 million in venture funding.

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and his team at law firm Covington & Burling conducted an audit of AnyVision. The law firm was able to confirm AnyVision's technology is used in border crossing checkpoints between Israel and the West Bank but found no evidence AnyVision's technology is powering a mass surveillance program in the West Bank. Nevertheless, Microsoft opted to divest its stake.

"For Microsoft, the audit process reinforced the challenges of being a minority investor in a company that sells sensitive technology, since such investments do not generally allow for the level of oversight or control that Microsoft exercises over the use of its own technology," the company said in a statement.

"By making a global change to its investment policies to end minority investments in companies that sell facial recognition technology, Microsoft's focus has shifted to commercial relationships that afford Microsoft greater oversight and control over the use of sensitive technologies."

Microsoft isn't giving up on the technology completely. The company does offer facial recognition tech through Azure, its cloud offering. Dubbed Face, it enables developers toembed facial recognitioninto apps.

Follow this link:
Microsoft Will No Longer Make Minority Investments in Facial Recognition Tech - Motley Fool