Archive for June 2017

Terror stalking UK kills 33 people in 3 months

June 4, 2017

Source: Terror stalking UK kills 33 people in 3 months

 DEBKA

The multiple London Bridge terrorist attacks Saturday night, June 3, which killed at least seven people and injured another 48, was the third terror outrage in Britain in three months. They were all the work of homegrown followers of the Islamic State. This means that an ISIS network is at large in the UK and has so far evaded the reach of British security and intelligence services.

In the first two attacks in March, a car and knife attack in Westminster left 5 people dead; the Manchester bombing nine days ago ended in 22 people killed.The “severe” terror threat level in place across Britain, four days before the general election, accounted for the rapid response of armed police and medical services to the first reports of the horrific car-ramming and stabbing attacks on London Bridge and nearby Borough Market.

Almost every day since the assault on the Manchester pop concert, the British police have announced fresh arrests of suspects linked to the Islamist terrorist network known to be operating in Britain. Saturday night’s attack exposed the fact that British security services led by MI5, which is in charge of anti-terrorist operations inside the country, had failed to uncover the malign cell at work, or found a lead to the masterminds running it.

Salman Abedi, the suicide bomber who blew up the Manchester concert, left not a single trace to the network although he had been on-and-off an intelligence watch list and the authorities had received three warnings that he was a potential threat.

Unlike Israeli police, the British authorities can no longer claim that Britain is faced with lone wolf assaults. The latest London atrocity was perpetrated by a gang of three-to-five jihadis, acting with a support system; Abedi likewise was shown to have had help.

The British are well aware that the scale of potential jihadism at home has reached crisis proportions. According to official figures, anti-terror agencies know of some 23,000 Islamist extremists, of whom 500 are rated capable to breaking into violent attacks without prior notice. It is now clear that the perpetrators of the most recent terrorist incidents in the UK were not included in either of those lists and are operating outside the net laid down by British intelligence.
MI5 is therefore without any real leads to the most dangerous Islamist terror network Britain has seen. The service may be in need of a thorough overall of its personnel and methods for a fresh start on the war on terror, a process that would take time.

Three points stand out in the combined London Bridge attack:

1. The terrorists wore fake bomb vests as a gimmick for capturing and taking hostages at one or more of the pubs or restaurants at Borough Market, which were crowded with Saturday night patrons. It was only the expeditious response of the London police which unhesitatingly shot dead three male suspects within minutes that cut the incident short.

2.  Security authorities in the West often explain attacks at home as prompted by setbacks suffered by ISIS on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq. This argument is fallacious. ISIS does not distinguish between the two fronts because it regards both as a single continuous arena of conflict for a single cause, war on the West. So long as the jihadists are able to hit Western cities, they will claim, like Al Qaeda, that they are undefeated and  continue to mount terrorist outrages.

3.  It is not much use for people in authority to call on everyone in London or Manchester – or any other city struck by terror – to carry on with their lives as usual. The attacks inevitably cast a pall of fear and individual concern about the future, even outside the immediate circle of victims.
The sights and scenes witnessed and graphically disseminated on social media are haunting and traumatic.
One witness reported on the attacks Saturday: “They were running up shouting, ‘This is for Allah.’ They stabbed this girl maybe 10 times, 15 times.”

The first police officer to reach the bridge after a white van swerved into pedestrians was stabbed. A photo showed the attackers then “used 12-inch hunting knives to attack revelers at busy bars and restaurants in the nearby Borough Market.”

One witness said he chased the attackers, who were running into pubs and bars. Some people threw bottles, chairs and other items to try and stop them.

The sight of people escaping the scenes of attacks their hands on their heads will not be easily forgotten.

London Bridge station and Borough Tube Station will remain closed for the rest of the day. Several streets around the London Bridge area remain closed. Prime Minister Theresa discontinued her campaign for the June 8 election and is chairing a Cobra emergency meeting later Sunday. She is expected to make a statement shortly.

British Police Rush to London Bridge After Reports of Van Hitting Pedestrians

June 4, 2017

British Police Rush to London Bridge After Reports of Van Hitting Pedestrians, Washington Free Beacon, Megan Revell, , June 3, 2017

A photograph taken on a mobile phone shows British police cars blocking the entrance to London Bridge, in central London on June 3, 2017, following an incident on the bridge. Police are dealing with a “major incident” on London Bridge, Transport for London said on Saturday, after witnesses reported seeing a van mounting the pavement and hitting pedestrians. / AFP PHOTO / Daniel SORABJI (Photo credit should read DANIEL SORABJI/AFP/Getty Images)

LONDON (Reuters) – British police rushed to an incident on London Bridge on Saturday after witnesses said a van plowed into pedestrians and another witness told Reuters she saw people with throats cut on London Bridge.

Police said they were dealing with an incident but gave no further details while the London Ambulance Service said it was sending multiple resources to the incident. A Reuters reporter near the scene said she saw 10 police cars rushing towards London Bridge.

One witness told Reuters that she saw what appeared to be three people with knife wounds and possibly their throats cut.

A witness told the BBC she saw a speeding white van veering into pedestrians. The witness said the van hit five to six people. Reuters television pictures showed dozens of emergency vehicles in the area around London Bridge.

London’s transport authority said London Bridge rail station had been closed at the request of the police.

On May 22, a suicide bomber killed 22 people at a pop concert by U.S. singer Ariana Grande in Manchester in northern England.

The Manchester bombing was the deadliest attack in Britain since July 2005, when four British Muslim suicide bombers killed 52 people in coordinated attacks on London’s transport network.

(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by William Schomberg and Jonathan Oatis)

Supreme Court Expedites Trump’s Petition on Executive Order Case

June 4, 2017

Supreme Court Expedites Trump’s Petition on Executive Order Case, BreitbartKen Klukowski, June 3, 2017

Molly Riley Reuters

On Friday, the Supreme Court rapidly expedited everything. The ACLU—which represents the plaintiffs—have been ordered to file their response by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 12. The ACLU lawyers must also respond to DOJ’s application for a stay by that time.

The Court could conceivably then vote immediately on whether to take the case, or anytime shortly thereafter. Under a normal briefing schedule, the Court would then hear arguments in October, and issue a decision by the end of 2017.

It’s also possible that the Court could accelerate briefing on an emergency basis, then hold arguments over the summer, or possibly even in June before recessing for the summer. The Court could make clear by the week of June 12 which course it is pursuing.

***********************************

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Supreme Court took the rare step on Friday of expediting consideration of a major case, rapidly accelerating the schedule for reviewing the Fourth Circuit’s blocking of President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order.

President Trump issued Executive Order 13780 (EO) on March 6, Section 2(c) of which temporarily restricted travel from six Muslim-majority countries associated with terrorism while the United States developed new vetting procedures to keep the nation safe.

Immigration activists sued, along with several immigrants and their families. A liberal federal district judge in Maryland granted a preliminary injunction blocking Section 2(c) of the EO. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit then affirmed the trial court’s injunction in a 10-3 decision, ruling that the EO violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, and taking the almost unheard-of step of all the court’s judges hearing the case, instead of sending it to a three-judge panel.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a petition for review at the Supreme Court on Thursday. Under the Court’s rules, a response from the plaintiffs would be due July 3. By that time the Court would be on recess for the summer, meaning that the justices would vote at the Court’s annual pre-Term conference, which will take place on September 25, on whether to take the case. That would typically mean hearing arguments in December or January, with a final decision coming down in early or mid-2018.

Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall at DOJ also asked Chief Justice John Roberts (who supervises the Fourth Circuit) to stay the appellate court’s decision until the justices can decide the matter.

On Friday, the Supreme Court rapidly expedited everything. The ACLU—which represents the plaintiffs—have been ordered to file their response by 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 12. The ACLU lawyers must also respond to DOJ’s application for a stay by that time.

The Court could conceivably then vote immediately on whether to take the case, or anytime shortly thereafter. Under a normal briefing schedule, the Court would then hear arguments in October, and issue a decision by the end of 2017.

It’s also possible that the Court could accelerate briefing on an emergency basis, then hold arguments over the summer, or possibly even in June before recessing for the summer. The Court could make clear by the week of June 12 which course it is pursuing.

The case is Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, No. 16-1436.

The British Election: Will Voters Opt for Intolerance and Xenophobia?

June 4, 2017

The British Election: Will Voters Opt for Intolerance and Xenophobia?Alan M. Dershowitz, June 3, 2017

(If the Labour Party wins a majority in Parliament, what will it mean for BREXIT? — DM)

On June 8, British voters will head to the polls, three years early. When Prime Minister Theresa May called last month for a snap election, the assumption was that she would win easily and increase her parliamentary majority. Recent numbers, however, show the gap closing between May and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn – who was given 200:1 odds of when he ran for the party leadership in 2015 – is doing surprisingly well again. This is despite the fact that Labour has been under fire for anti-Semitism in its ranks, and Corbyn himself has been accused of anti-Jewish bigotry. Corbyn denies having a problem with Jews, claiming that he is merely anti-Israel. Even if it were possible to hate Israel without being anti-Semitic – and I am not sure that it is – Corbyn’s words and deeds demonstrate that he often uses virulent anti-Zionism as a cover for his soft anti-Semitism.

For example, in a speech last year, he said that Jews are “no more responsible” for the actions of Israel than Muslims are for those of ISIS. In 2009, he announced: “It will be my pleasure and my honour to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well.”

NOTTINGHAM, ENGLAND – JUNE 03: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn greets supporters at Beeston Youth and Community Centre he visits the East Midlands during the final weekend of the General Election campaign on June 3, 2017 in Nottingham, England. If elected in next week’s general election Mr Corbyn is pledging to create a million new jobs and to scrap zero-hours contracts. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The company that Corbyn keeps, too, suggests that at best he gives a free pass to bigotry, racism and anti-Semitism within the ranks of his own party, and at worst, he espouses them. He has shared speaking platforms and led rallies with some of the most infamous Jew-haters. He has attended meetings hosted by 9/11 conspiracy theorist Paul Eisen, author of a blog titled: “My Life as a Holocaust Denier.” He has been associated with Sheikh Raed Salah – leader of the outlawed northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, a blood libel perpetuator convicted for incitement to violence and racism – whom he referred to as a “very honoured citizen” whose “voice must be heard.” Corbyn was also a paid contributor for Press TV, Iran’s tightly controlled media apparatus, whose production is directly overseen by anti-Semitic Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

One of the biggest criticisms of the “Corbynization” of British politics has been the mainstreaming of traditional anti-Semitism. The country’s chief rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, has called the problem within the Labour party “severe.”

Consider the late Gerald Kaufman, a Labour veteran and close political associate of Corbyn’s who touted conspiracy theories about Jews throughout his political career. When speaking at a pro-Palestinian event, Kaufman said: “Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative Party – as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives.” While Corbyn condemned this remark, he refused to yield to widespread demands for disciplinary action against Kaufman. This is in keeping with what a key former adviser to Corbyn, Harry Fletcher, wrote: “I’d suggest to him [Jeremy] about how he might build bridges with the Jewish community and none of it ever happened.”

Let’s be clear: I do not believe that Corbyn’s rise in the polls is due to his hatred of Jews and Israel, but rather in spite of it. May called for elections and then refused to debate her opponents. She is running a lacklustre campaign somewhat reminiscent of U.S. Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton’s last year. For his part, Corbyn is a populist, like U.S. President Donald Trump. Although politically polar opposites, they have much in common, such as a penchant for shooting from the hip and unpredictability.

Furthermore, many British voters are unaware of Corbyn’s anti-Semitic associations. Others know, but don’t care. Those on the hard-Left, such as union activists and academics, include knee-jerk opponents of the nation state of the Jewish people and supporters of academic and cultural boycotts of Israel. Many of these favor trade and engagement with such egregious human-rights violators as Iran, Cuba, China, Russia, Belarus and Venezuela. Singling out Israel – the Middle East’s only democracy, with one of the world’s best human-rights records, rule of law and concern for enemy civilians — for boycotts itself is a form of anti-Semitism.

Corbyn himself has called for boycotts of the Jewish state. He has advocated for an arms embargo, citing Israel’s supposed “breach” of the human-rights clause of the EU-Israel trade agreement. He also led the call to boycott Israel’s national soccer team in the European Championship in Wales. (Ironically, Israel only plays in this league because it was expelled from the Asian Football Confederation due to the Arab League’s boycott.)

Corbyn, as well, has been a vocal supporter of the so-called Palestinian “right of return,” something that would lead to an Arab majority and Jewish minority within Israel, and render the two-state solution completely obsolete.

Whether anti-Semitism is the cause or effect of the Labour party’s problem is not important. What is relevant is that Corbyn not only has not stemmed the tide, but has played a big part in perpetuating it.

British voters now have the opportunity to choose where they will go as a nation. Will they opt to move away from stability, rationality and tolerance toward simple mindedness and xenophobia? I sincerely hope not.

Bernie Sanders has already made his choice. He is campaigning for Corbyn despite his record on anti-Semitism. Sanders will have to explain why a Jew is helping to elect a bigot with the views Corbyn holds about the Jewish people and their nation state.

Denmark stops funding for Palestinian NGOs for “glorifying” terror

June 3, 2017

Denmark stops funding for Palestinian NGOs for “glorifying” terror, DEBKAfile, June 3, 2017

The Danish ambassador to Israel Jesper Vahr announced Saturday that his country has stopped financial support to Palestinian non-governmental organizations for “glorifying terrorism, and demands money back.”

Copenhagen announced the decision a few days after Norway decided to stop funding for a Palestinian youth center for women, because it was named after the Palestinian female terrorist Dalal al-Maghrabi. In 1978, Maghrabi commanded a horrendous hijack-cum murder operation which left 38 Israelis dead, including 13 children, as well as an American photographer Gail Rubin. Another 72 were injured. A public square in Ramallah honors her memory as “martyr.”

Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged Danish foreign minister Anders Samuelsen to cancel Denmark’s funding for Palestinian NGOs that promoted incitement against Israel.

Egypt’s Battle Against Islamic Extremism

June 3, 2017

Egypt’s Battle Against Islamic Extremism, Gatestone InstituteShireen Qudosi, June 3, 2017

Sisi faces more than just militant and political extremists within Egypt’s borders; he is also walking a theological tightrope. Egypt is home to the regressive theocratic influence of the most revered Islamic institution in the Sunni world, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, which openly views freedom as a “ticking time-bomb.”

Being held hostage intellectually by the grip of Al-Azhar University ensures that there is a constant supply when it comes to producing the next generation of militant and political Islamists.

President Sisi’s response to the brutal slaughter of peaceful Christian worshippers is being called rare but should not be surprising, considering the aggressive measures that need to be taken to hold extremism at bay, and to eradicate the threat that local groups pose to the Egyptian people. Coming out of the Riyadh Summit, where President Trump and a host of Muslim nations, including Egypt, agreed to drive out extremism, Sisi’s reaction was necessary.

 

*********************************

When it comes to regional interests in the Middle East, the priority is the most dominant and violent force.

Egypt stands out as a primary target, given the cocktail of challenges that position it as a center of radical Islam. Egypt faces political, violent, and theological militancy within its borders.

For a nation to do what it must to survive, it needs the steadfast support of world powers. Step one is annihilating all sources of violent Islam.

 

For a Western audience, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is a complex figure, who was shunned by the Obama administration. There appear truly pressing, immediate priorities in Egypt, such as developing the economy and combating the avalanche of extremist attempts to overthrow him. Among Middle East and North African territories, Egypt stands out as a primary target, given the cocktail of challenges that position it as a center of radical Islam.

President Sisi faces violent extremist hotbeds in the Sinai Peninsula, and the still-destabilizing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood (a political arm of violent radicals). Most notably, Sisi brought a reality check to the Arab Spring when he led the military overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government in 2013, ushering a spiritual and cultural Islamic reformation with widespread popular support from Egyptians on a grass-roots level.

Sisi faces more than just militant and political extremists within Egypt’s borders; he is also walking a theological tightrope. Egypt is home to the regressive theocratic influence of the most revered Islamic institution in the Sunni world, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, which openly views freedom as a “ticking time-bomb.”

Being held hostage intellectually by the grip of Al-Azhar University ensures that there is a constant supply when it comes to producing the next generation of militant and political Islamists.

Egypt also faces extremist infiltration from neighboring Libya, a nation caught in a power vacuum after the murder of its leader, Col. Muammar Gaddafi. This vacuum has been readily filled by Islamic militants, including ISIS.

Upon returning home in April from his first visit to the U.S. since 2013, Sisi faced a series of domestic terror attacks that once again put Egypt in a global spotlight. On Palm Sunday, in April, two suicide bombings in Coptic Christian churches killed more than 45 people and injured another 120. For Egypt, one of the last regional strongholds that still has a vibrant non-Muslim minority population, violent eruptions on major Christian holidays have become routine.

In England, just days after the May 22 Manchester suicide bombing, attention was once again on Egypt where 29 Coptic Christians were gunned down on a bus traveling to a monastery near the city of Minya. The attack was launched by masked terrorists who arrived in three pick-up trucks and opened fire on the passengers, many of whom were children. Egyptian intelligence believes the Minya attack was led by ISIS jihadists based in Libya. In February, the aspiring terrorist caliphate also launched a campaign against Egypt’s Christian population. The Egyptian military responded swiftly with air strikes against terrorist camps, along with a televised warning against sponsored terrorism.

President Sisi’s response to the brutal slaughter of peaceful Christian worshippers is being called rare but should not be surprising, considering the aggressive measures that need to be taken to hold extremism at bay, and to eradicate the threat that local groups pose to the Egyptian people. Coming out of the Riyadh Summit, where President Trump and a host of Muslim nations, including Egypt, agreed to drive out extremism, Sisi’s reaction was necessary.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi (front row, far-right) attended the May 21 Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, along with U.S. President Donald Trump (front-center). The problems of Islamic extremism and terrorism were much-discussed at the summit. (Photo by Thaer Ghanaim/PPO via Getty Images)

In a war that is equally ideological and kinetic, Muslim nations and others trying to survive the plague of Islamic terrorism will need to be as ruthless as their extremist counterparts. That is something that the warring political factions in the U.S. quickly need to understand. When it comes to regional interests in the Middle East, the priority is combating the most dominant and violent force. If that force wins, human rights are completely off the table. Beyond Egypt, President Trump has received considerable backlash in the U.S. for siding with what are seen as repressive regimes, whether it was hosting Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the White House or engaging with dictators and monarchs during the Riyadh Summit.

In order to bring security to the region, alliances need to look at the real instigators and agents of chaos. There is a metastasizing threat that requires a new coalition of the willing. For a nation to do what it must to survive, it needs the steadfast support of world powers. Step one is annihilating all sources of violent Islam.

Shireen Qudosi is the Director of Muslim Matters, with America Matters.

Foreign politicos punch Trump, copy his campaign

June 3, 2017

Foreign politicos punch Trump, copy his campaign, DEBKAfile, June 3, 2017

While several European politicians seize on US President Donald Trump as a punching bag, at least three are pragmatic enough to copycat his tactics and slogans for boosting their chances to get elected.

The heat Trump is taking at home meanwhile goes from one crescendo to another. Hillary Clinton, the Democratic rival he defeated in 2016, continues to buck all forecasts by apparently shaping up for another bid for the White House in 2020 at the age of 74. This week, she went on about the many culprits responsible for her defeat – all external – until even loyal fans wearily urged her to “move on.”

Nonetheless, she is sticking to her guns. The president is somehow dodging a barrage of assaults on his “Russian connection” – and since Friday, his decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord – sluggish progress on his health, tax and immigration reforms, White House infighting and a Republican party divided against him. Clinton appears to be encouraged enough to pin her hopes on midterm elections next year, which she is counting on enablinlg Democrats to snatch the House majority. Weakened by the blitz against him, the president will fall under the axe of impeachment, she hopes, and Trump and family will be finally driven out of the White House and Washington.

However, impeachment legislation could drag on for years, as in the case of her husband, Bill Cllinton, and not necessarily end in firing the president. Hillay is not fazed by this, nor by the fact that Trump’s accusers, including former intelligence chiefs and Obama appointees, have failed so far to turn up a scintilla of proof that he is guilty of criminal wrongdoing.

But the months of relentless pressure are taking their toll – even on the president’s following in the House and the Senate. His administration faces major obstacles in pursuing its agenda and a shrinking number of foreign friends, especially in the West.

Now and then, an occasional cool headed observer sees through the anti-Trump tsunami to glimpse the grassroots popularity that brought him to the White House and still weathers the storm of disparagement.

One is former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an antagonist who Friday donated $15 million to the UN fund for combating climate change, to make up for the shortfall caused by Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. Bloomberg predicted in a news interview that Trump would win a second term in the White House.

In Europe, the most articulate Trump-bashers are German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and the British opposition leader, Labor’s Jeremy Corbyn.

While campaigning for a fourth term in the Sept. 17 election, Merkel was dismayed to discover that having turned its back on Trump’s America and post-Brexit Britain, Germany is on its own: “The times when we could completely rely on others are, to an extent, over,” she commented.

There is more than a dash of cynicism in her comment.  The United States began withdrawing from Europe and pivoting towards Asia when George W. Bush was in the White House. This process accelerated under the Obama administration. But now the chancellor faces an electorate which expects practical solutions to its problems, and she may not be able to avoid expanding German military strength. It is convenient for her to pin the blame for this undesirable situation on Trump, making him the symbol of the unreliable NATO order.

And then Macron, scion of the banking establishment and representative of the French elite classes which control it, won the presidency by posing as a non-politician and promising to sweep away “the establishment” and conduct reforms. (Remember Trump’s slogan: “Drain the swamp”?).

The most radical of the three is Britain’s Labor leader Jeremy Corbyn, who has maintained that terrorists, like members of Hamas and Hizballah, whom he has called “friends,” should not be blamed for their violence, but the “establishments” which persecute them. Hence his membership of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and defense of is party’s refusal to expel former London Mayor Ken Livingstone for linking Zionism to Adolf Hitler, and other anti-Semitic members.

But since Corbyn dedicated his campaign for election on June 8, to overturning the “rigged” system which favors elites over ordinary working people, this hitherto veteran back-bencher who espoused leftist fringe causes, has suddenly shot up in the polls. Less than a week before voting, the ruling Conservative’s majority of 20 points is estimated to have shrunk to three. The far-left Corbyn is now in with a chance of replacing Prime Minister Theresa May at 10 Downing Street.

UNRWA recycles image of Syrian girl, now claims she is Gazan victim of Israel in fundraising campaign

June 3, 2017

UNRWA recycles image of Syrian girl, now claims she is Gazan victim of Israel in fundraising campaign, Jihad Watch, June 2, 2017

(The UN Rocket Warehousing Agency strikes again. Please see also, Gaza on the Brink. — DM)

Notice also that not only do they cynically reuse the photo, but they make up a whole tear-jerking story about little “Aya,” victim of Israeli oppression. Three years ago they used the identical picture as a girl standing in bombed-out Damascus.

Two primary lessons:

  1. The UNRWA is a viciously corrupt and dishonest organization, bent on enabling the jihad against Israel and willing to lie brazenly in the process.
  2. There is so little actual oppression of the “Palestinians” that images from elsewhere have to be used to demonize the Israelis.

Nikki Haley, Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, said that the U.S. would fight against the demonization of Israel at the UN. Why is the UN receiving even a penny of U.S. funding at this point?

“UNRWA fakes Gaza girl campaign with image of bombed-out Damascus,” UN Watch, June 2, 2017 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

GENEVA, June 2, 2017 – UN Watch today demanded that UNRWA chief Pierre Krahenbuhl apologize for using fake images of a girl in a bombed-out Syria building in a major global campaign to raise money for the organization by pretending the girl is a Gaza victim of Israeli actions.

UNRWA is now running the above photo on Facebook and Twitter ads. It is also now UNRWA’s cover image.

Imagine being cut off from the world – for your whole life. That’s reality for children like Aya. The blockade of Gaza began when she was a baby, the occupation in the West Bank before her parents were born. Now she is eleven, and the blockade goes on.

Aya’s childhood memories are of conflict and hardship, walls she cannot escape, and the fear that the only home she knows, however tiny, could be gone when she returns from school.

This Ramadan, please help support children like Aya who have known nothing but conflict and hardship. Donate here: http://buff.ly/2qgsP0Y#forPalestinerefugees

Yet neither the girl nor the bombed-out building are in Gaza; it’s an old photo from Syria, dating apparently to 2014.

Here is UNRWA tweeting the original image in a January 2015 story on Syria:

The photo also appeared on other UNRWA Syria pages, here, here, and here, an UNRWA report in which the caption reads:

A young girl stands in the rubble of Qabr Essit, near Damascus. In 2014, UNRWA was able begin rebuilding facilities within the neighbourhood, including a school and community centre © 2014 UNRWA Photo by Taghrid Mohammad

How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case after her *campaign* statements about Trump?

June 3, 2017

How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case after her *campaign* statements about Trump?, Legal Insurrection, , June 2, 2017

(To the extent that credibility is at issue, shouldn’t Candidate Trump’s campaign statements about a “Muslim ban” be examined rather than the “facially neutral” executive order? Please see also, Trump’s “Muslim Ban,” Obamacare and Sally Yates. — DM)

This is not a situation where a Justice merely is presumed to have political leanings (don’t they all?), or is affiliated with one political party more than another. Justice Ginsburg has publicly questioned Trump’s credibility, and that credibility is an issue in the case as it presents itself in the 4th Circuit decision from which review is sought.

****************************************

Donald Trump’s second Executive Order on visa entry from six majority Muslim countries is now before the Supreme Court.

Trump is seeking review of the 4th Circuit’s decision upholding a Maryland District Court injunction halting the Executive Order. In addition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asking SCOTUS to hear the case on the merits, Trump has a request for a stay of the lower court injunctions pending a decision on the merits. The application is on a fast track, with the Court setting June 12 as the deadline for opposition papers.

The 4th Circuit’s decision found that the Executive Order, though facially neutral, “in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and that context was “a backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisors and representatives at different points in time, both before and after the election and President Trump’s assumption of office.”

Those statements, including by Trump himself, the 4th Circuit concluded:

… creates a compelling case that EO-2’s primary purpose is religious. Then-candidate Trump’s campaign statements reveal that on numerous occasions, he expressed anti-Muslim sentiment, as well as his intent, if elected, to ban Muslims from the United States….

As a candidate, Trump also suggested that he would attempt to circumvent scrutiny of the Muslim ban by formulating it in terms of nationality, rather than religion….

These statements, taken together, provide direct, specific evidence of what motivated both EO-1 and EO-2: President Trump’s desire to exclude Muslims from the United States. The statements also reveal President Trump’s intended means of effectuating the ban: by targeting majority-Muslim nations instead of Muslims explicitly….

EO-2 cannot be read in isolation from the statements of planning and purpose that accompanied it, particularly in light of the sheer number of statements, their nearly singular source, and the close connection they draw between the proposed Muslim ban and EO-2 itself.

The 4th Circuit decision has been widely criticized for its reliance on campaign statements, as well as for substituting judicial security evaluations for those of the executive branch.

This case, unlike other more mundane cases involving Trump policies that may come before the court, clearly places Donald Trump’s words, personality and credibility in issue.

One of the Justices already has expressed a view on Trump’s credibility. In July 2016, Justice Ruth Bader Ginbsburg was quoted in a CNN interview deriding Trump as “a faker”:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.” ….
“At first I thought it was funny,” she said of Trump’s early candidacy. “To think that there’s a possibility that he could be president … ” Her voice trailed off gloomily.
“I think he has gotten so much free publicity,” she added, drawing a contrast between what she believes is tougher media treatment of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and returning to an overriding complaint: “Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns.”
That July 2016 CNN lashing of Trump was not a one-off. Justice Ginsburg made two other negative public statements about Trump during the campaign (via Politifact):

Interview July 7, 2016 with Associated Press

Asked what if Trump won the presidency, Ginsburg said: “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

Interview July 8, 2016 with New York Times

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.

Referring to something she thought her late husband, tax lawyer Martin Ginsburg, would have said, she said: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Justice Ginsburg came under heavy criticism from a wide spectrum of commentators, since it is unusual for a Supreme Court Justice to express views on a political candidate and campaign. Even the Editorial Board of the NY Times agreed that Justice Ginsburg’s comments were inappropriate, Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.

Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms….

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?
The Washington Post editorial board also was critical of Justice Ginsburg’s comments, Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on Donald Trump:
However valid her comments may have been, though, and however in keeping with her known political bent, they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court. There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a “judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts. No doubt this restriction requires judges, and justices, to muzzle themselves and, to a certain extent, to pretend they either do or do not think various things that they obviously do or do not believe. As the saying goes, however, “hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”
As journalists, we generally favor more openness and disclosure from public figures rather than less. Yet Justice Ginsburg’s off-the-cuff remarks about the campaign fall into that limited category of candor that we can’t admire, because it’s inconsistent with her function in our democratic system….
Justice Ginsburg didn’t quite apologize, but did say she regretted the comments:

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Later Thursday in an interview with NPR, Ginsburg described her remarks as “incautious.”

“I said something I should not have said,” she remarked. When NPR’s Nina Totenberg asked her “if she just goofed,” Ginsburg responded: “I would say yes to your question, and that’s why I gave the statement. I did something I should not have done. It’s over and done with and I don’t want to discuss it anymore.”

Justice Ginsburg’s negative comments about Trump, though less direct, continued after inauguration. On February 24, 2017, the Washington Post reported:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a noted critic of President Trump, suggested that she doesn’t believe the country is in good hands but said she is hopeful about the future.

“We’re not experiencing the best of times,” Ginsburg said Thursday on BBC’s “Newsnight,” though she did not comment directly about the president.

In a case in which Trump’s campaign comments are front and center, how can Ginsburg hear a case in which she has complained publicly about Trump and Trump’s campaign?

This is not a situation where a Justice merely is presumed to have political leanings (don’t they all?), or is affiliated with one political party more than another. Justice Ginsburg has publicly questioned Trump’s credibility, and that credibility is an issue in the case as it presents itself in the 4th Circuit decision from which review is sought.

Justice Ginsburg cannot be removed from the case. The judicial code cited by the Washington Post editorial doesn’t apply to Supreme Court Justices. She would have to recuse herself voluntarily.

I don’t expect Justice Ginsburg to recuse herself. But her *campaign* comments about Trump’s campaign look even worse in hindsight.

Cartoons and Video of the Day

June 3, 2017

Via LatmaTV

 

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

 

H/t Power Line