RUSSIA/РОССИЯ THREAD—ASSANGE CHRGD W/ SPYING—DJT IMPEACHED TWICE-US TREASURY SANCTS KILIMNIK AS RUSSIAN AGNT

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,570
Reputation
-34,224
Daps
615,539
Reppin
The Deep State
:ALERTRED::ALERTRED::ALERTRED:


Exclusive - State Dept. revolt: Tillerson accused of violating U.S. law on child soldiers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of about a dozen U.S. State Department officials have taken the unusual step of formally accusing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson of violating a federal law designed to stop foreign militaries from enlisting child soldiers, according to internal government documents reviewed by Reuters.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaks to staff members at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. in Geneva, Switzerland October 26, 2017. REUTERS/Alex Brandon/Pool/File Photo
A confidential State Department “dissent” memo not previously reported said Tillerson breached the Child Soldiers Prevention Act when he decided in June to exclude Iraq, Myanmar, and Afghanistan from a U.S. list of offenders in the use of child soldiers. This was despite the department publicly acknowledging that children were being conscripted in those countries.[tmsnrt.rs/2jJ7pav]

Keeping the countries off the annual list makes it easier to provide them with U.S. military assistance. Iraq and Afghanistan are close allies in the fight against Islamist militants, while Myanmar is an emerging ally to offset China’s influence in Southeast Asia.

Documents reviewed by Reuters also show Tillerson’s decision was at odds with a unanimous recommendation by the heads of the State Department’s regional bureaus overseeing embassies in the Middle East and Asia, the U.S. envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the department’s human rights office and its own in-house lawyers. [tmsnrt.rs/2Ah6tB4]


“Beyond contravening U.S. law, this decision risks marring the credibility of a broad range of State Department reports and analyses and has weakened one of the U.S. government’s primary diplomatic tools to deter governmental armed forces and government-supported armed groups from recruiting and using children in combat and support roles around the world,” said the July 28 memo.

Reuters reported in June that Tillerson had disregarded internal recommendations on Iraq, Myanmar and Afghanistan. The new documents reveal the scale of the opposition in the State Department, including the rare use of what is known as the “dissent channel,” which allows officials to object to policies without fear of reprisals.

The views expressed by the U.S. officials illustrate ongoing tensions between career diplomats and the former chief of Exxon Mobil Corp appointed by President Donald Trump to pursue an “America First” approach to diplomacy.

INTERPRETING THE LAW
The child soldiers law passed in 2008 states that the U.S. government must be satisfied that no children under the age of 18 “are recruited, conscripted or otherwise compelled to serve as child soldiers” for a country to be removed from the list. It currently includes the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Mali, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

”The Secretary thoroughly reviewed all of the information presented to him and made a determination about whether the facts presented justified a listing pursuant to the law,” a State Department spokesperson said when asked about the officials’ allegation that he had violated the law.

In a written response to the dissent memo on Sept. 1, Tillerson adviser Brian Hook acknowledged that the three countries did use child soldiers. He said, however, it was necessary to distinguish between governments “making little or no effort to correct their child soldier violations ... and those which are making sincere - if as yet incomplete - efforts.”

Hook made clear that America’s top diplomat used what he sees as his discretion to interpret the law.

‘A POWERFUL MESSAGE’

Foreign militaries on the list are prohibited from receiving aid, training and weapons from Washington unless the White House issues a waiver based on U.S. “national interest.” In 2016, under the Obama administration, both Iraq and Myanmar, as well as others such as Nigeria and Somalia, received waivers.

At times, the human rights community chided President Barack Obama for being too willing to issue waivers and exemptions, especially for governments that had security ties with Washington, instead of sanctioning more of those countries.

“Human Rights Watch frequently criticized President Barack Obama for giving too many countries waivers, but the law has made a real difference,” Jo Becker, advocacy director for the children’s rights division of Human Rights Watch, wrote in June in a critique of Tillerson’s decision.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attends as U.S. President Donald Trump holds a bilateral meeting with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi alongside the ASEAN Summit in Manila, Philippines November 13, 2017. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo
The dissenting U.S. officials stressed that Tillerson’s decision to exclude Iraq, Afghanistan and Myanmar went a step further than the Obama administration’s waiver policy by contravening the law and effectively easing pressure on the countries to eradicate the use of child soldiers.

The officials acknowledged in the documents reviewed by Reuters that those three countries had made progress. But in their reading of the law, they said that was not enough to be kept off a list that has been used to shame governments into completely eradicating the use of child soldiers.

‘UNCONSCIONABLE ACTIONS’

Ben Cardin, ranking Democrat on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wrote to Tillerson on Friday saying there were “serious concerns that the State Department may not be complying” with the law and that the secretary’s decision “sent a powerful message to these countries that they were receiving a pass on their unconscionable actions.”

The memo was among a series of previously unreported documents sent this month to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the State Department’s independent inspector general’s office that relate to allegations that Tillerson violated the child soldiers law.

Legal scholars say that because of the executive branch’s latitude in foreign policy there is little legal recourse to counter Tillerson’s decision.

Herman Schwartz, a constitutional law professor at American University in Washington, said U.S. courts would be unlikely to accept any challenge to Tillerson’s interpretation of the child soldiers law as allowing him to remove a country from the list on his own discretion.

The signatories to the document were largely senior policy experts with years of involvement in the issues, said an official familiar with the matter. Reuters saw a copy of the document that did not include the names of those who signed it.

Tillerson’s decision to remove Iraq and Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, from the list and reject a recommendation by U.S. officials to add Afghanistan was announced in the release of the government’s annual human trafficking report on June 27.

Six days earlier, a previously unreported memo emailed to Tillerson from a range of senior diplomats said the three countries violated the law based on evidence gathered by U.S. officials in 2016 and recommended that he approve them for the new list.

It noted that in Iraq, the United Nations and non-governmental organizations “reported that some Sunni tribal forces ... recruited and used persons younger than the age of 18, including instances of children taking a direct part in hostilities.”

Ali Kareem, who heads Iraq’s High Committee for Human Rights, denied the country’s military or state-backed militias use child soldiers. ”We can say today with full confidence that we have a clean slate on child recruitment issues,” he said.

The memo also said “two confirmed cases of child recruitment” by the Myanmar military “were documented during the reporting period.” Human rights advocates have estimated that dozens of children are still conscripted there.

Myanmar government spokesman Zaw Htay challenged accusers to provide details of where and how child soldiers are being used. He noted that in the latest State Department report on human trafficking, “they already recognized (Myanmar) for reducing of child soldiers” – though the report also made clear some children were still conscripted.

The memo said further there was “credible evidence” that a government-supported militia in Afghanistan “recruited and used a child,” meeting the minimum threshold of a single confirmed case that the State Department had previously used as the legal basis for putting a country on the list.

The Afghan defense and interior ministries both denied there were any child soldiers in Afghan national security forces, an assertion that contradicts the State Department’s reports and human rights activists.

Additional reporting by Raya Jalabi in Baghdad, Antoni Slodkowski and Shoon Naing in Yangon, Hamid Shalizi in Kabul





@DonKnock @SJUGrad13 @88m3 @Menelik II @wire28 @smitty22 @Reality @fact @Hood Critic @ExodusNirvana @Blessed Is the Man @THE MACHINE @OneManGang @dtownreppin214 @JKFrazier @tmonster @blotter @BigMoneyGrip @Soymuscle Mike @Grano-Grano @.r. @GinaThatAintNoDamnPuppy! @Cali_livin
 

ineedsleep212

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
31,027
Reputation
3,115
Daps
62,847
Reppin
Brooklyn, NY
Sounds like you need sleep...
:martin::comeon:

Nah but really though I'm just asking questions cuz the article does include this.

Foreign militaries on the list are prohibited from receiving aid, training and weapons from Washington unless the White House issues a waiver based on U.S. “national interest.” In 2016, under the Obama administration, both Iraq and Myanmar, as well as others such as Nigeria and Somalia, received waivers.

At times, the human rights community chided President Barack Obama for being too willing to issue waivers and exemptions, especially for governments that had security ties with Washington, instead of sanctioning more of those countries.

“Human Rights Watch frequently criticized President Barack Obama for giving too many countries waivers, but the law has made a real difference,” Jo Becker, advocacy director for the children’s rights division of Human Rights Watch, wrote in June in a critique of Tillerson’s decision.

There were those exemptions so what made folks "revolt" now compared to before. And nah I'm not doing a both sides-ism. Just asking what motive / did folks suddenly have a spine? :yeshrug:
 

hashmander

Hale End
Supporter
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
18,712
Reputation
4,493
Daps
79,823
Reppin
The Arsenal
:martin::comeon:

Nah but really though I'm just asking questions cuz the article does include this.

Foreign militaries on the list are prohibited from receiving aid, training and weapons from Washington unless the White House issues a waiver based on U.S. “national interest.” In 2016, under the Obama administration, both Iraq and Myanmar, as well as others such as Nigeria and Somalia, received waivers.

At times, the human rights community chided President Barack Obama for being too willing to issue waivers and exemptions, especially for governments that had security ties with Washington, instead of sanctioning more of those countries.

“Human Rights Watch frequently criticized President Barack Obama for giving too many countries waivers, but the law has made a real difference,” Jo Becker, advocacy director for the children’s rights division of Human Rights Watch, wrote in June in a critique of Tillerson’s decision.

There were those exemptions so what made folks "revolt" now compared to before. And nah I'm not doing a both sides-ism. Just asking what motive / did folks suddenly have a spine? :yeshrug:
it is both sides-ism if you're going to leave the very next sentence out.

The dissenting U.S. officials stressed that Tillerson’s decision to exclude Iraq, Afghanistan and Myanmar went a step further than the Obama administration’s waiver policy by contravening the law and effectively easing pressure on the countries to eradicate the use of child soldiers.

the revolt isn't about waivers, but about how far tillerson is taking it.
 
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
7,815
Reputation
915
Daps
24,213
Reppin
Philadelphia
I think with all of the recent distractions something big is about to come out.

I am going to have to lose weight for the new year from all of these nothing burgers :troll:

Seriously, it was just a few months ago with not only trumpset on the bs but irl about there is no "there", what about ism, damn elite coastal libs etc.

Its like people never saw any type of crime show or movie or doc on how the feds build cases to grab everyone they can to tighten the grip around the main target, in this case trump.

Its like people forgot racism still exists.

Its like people forgot other countries just do not like us, but hate us and would love nothing more than to cause chaos here.

People were more willing to believe that Hillary was a part of a scandal selling uranium and her emails had personal love notes written from Satan to excuse themselves for voting president Sunkist.

And now, fukkery :wow:
 

Batter Up

Superstar
Joined
Jun 23, 2012
Messages
2,706
Reputation
1,740
Daps
16,864
DOxtSmcVwAAydH1.jpg




:russ: We're gonna miss out on some prime fukkery when this guy gets locked up.

Best case scenario is he flips on the Trump campaign and becomes the half witted hero we all deserve.
 

Black Panther

Long Live The King
Supporter
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
13,510
Reputation
10,118
Daps
70,583
Reppin
Wakanda
:russ: We're gonna miss out on some prime fukkery when this guy gets locked up.

Best case scenario is he flips on the Trump campaign and becomes the half witted hero we all deserve.

I'm still convinced he listens to "Walking on Sunshine" as he walks down the street. :mjlol:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
305,570
Reputation
-34,224
Daps
615,539
Reppin
The Deep State


Trump impeachment: House must act now to keep our Republic
Learn the laws, steps and votes needed in the Presidential impeachment process. An earlier version of this video incorrectly identified one of the president’s who was impeached. USA TODAY



There are many uncontested facts that suggest Trump is an extraordinary threat to our democracy and constitutional order. We see no reason for delay.


The Constitution provides that “the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment” and that “The president ... shall be removed from office on impeachment for ... high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The House Judiciary Committee, when it considered articles of impeachment against former president Richard Nixon in 1974, addressed the question of what constitutes a “high crime” or “misdemeanor.” Such impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal acts, a staff report concluded, but should include “constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself, and thus are ‘high’ offenses.”

More: Short of impeachment, 6 ways Congress can limit Trump damage to U.S.

More: The Trump tide is ebbing. How low will it go?

Six Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, a long-shot effort that stands little chance in the Republican-led House. The five articles include accusing the president of obstruction of justice. (Nov. 15) AP

Several of President Trump’s actions since taking office meet this high standard. They were not simply inappropriate or wrong; they threaten to undermine our fundamental constitutional structure, our national security and our democracy. In light of this, we have introduced five articles of impeachment against Trump and called for immediate impeachment hearings.

The articles address a range of Trump’s actions, from obstruction of justice and violations of the Constitution’s foreign and domestic emoluments clauses to undermining the independence of the federal judiciary and the freedom of the press.

We recognize that several investigations are ongoing, including one led by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign. We support a continuation of these efforts to ensure complete transparency and accountability. Sufficient facts, however, already exist in the public record to warrant the start of impeachment proceedings in Congress. Given the magnitude of the constitutional crisis engendered by Trump’s actions, we see no reason for delay.

For example, with regard to obstruction of justice, we already know that Trump fired former FBI director James Comey while the bureau was investigating potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign, and the president has already admitted on national television that he had the Russia investigation on his mindwhen he fired Comey. We also already know that Donald Trump Jr. met with a Russian attorney who offered to provide damaging information about Hillary Clinton as part of the Russian government’s efforts to help his father’s campaign. These facts are uncontested.

Similarly, uncontroverted facts support the charge that the president has violated the foreign and domestic emoluments clauses. Unlike all of his modern predecessors, Trump has refused to release his tax returns or to divest his assets or place them into a blind trust. As a result, foreign governments and even the United States government, have spent thousands of dollars at Trump-branded properties in which Trump continues to have an ownership interest. The framers of our Constitution wisely prohibited presidents from accepting these kinds of payments to protect against their potentially corrupting influence.

More: Who pays for Trump's contempt for ethics? USA. USA. USA.

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Consider that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia reportedly paid $270,000 to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., as part a lobbying effort, and the Embassy of Kuwait held an event there estimated at somewhere between $40,000 and $60,000. Domestically, Trump’s repeated visits to Trump-branded properties in which he retains an ownership interest have caused the federal government to spend money at his businesses, including at least $137,000 by the Secret Service for golf carts and more than $1,000 for just two nights of lodging at Mar-a-Lago by the National Security Council.

There is also already a well-established record of Trump actions that undermine the independence of the federal judiciary and the freedom of the press. For example, his pardon of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for criminal contempt of court is a matter of public record, as is his tweet criticizing a “so-called judge” who had overturned his executive order banning refugees from certain Muslim-majority nations. And it is also public record that the president circulated a video of himself violently wrestling a man covered by a CNN logo. Many more facts support the president's impeachment.

To be clear, we are highly sensitive to the fact that impeachment may result in overturning the results of a democratic election. Yet the Constitution’s framers provided for this extraordinary remedy to allow the people’s representatives to confront extraordinary threats to our democracy and constitutional order posed by the actions of federal officeholders, including the president. When Benjamin Franklin was asked at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention what kind of government the framers had established, he responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

It is time for the House to rise to the challenge and begin an impeachment inquiry.

Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Al Green of Texas, Marcia Fudge of Ohio and Adriano Espaillat of New York are Democratic members of the House.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @USATOpinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.
 
Top