SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mrjns who wrote (181364)1/17/2020 10:59:40 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
Mrjns

  Respond to of 455617
 
Report: 260 million Christians Face ‘High Levels of Persecution’
Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D.

breitbart.com





Christian persecution around the globe reached an unprecedented level at the end of 2019, with over 260 million Christians facing “high levels of persecution,” Open Doors revealed Wednesday.




In its World Watch List 2020, Open Doors notes that one in 8 believers around the world suffers serious levels of persecution, while providing an in-depth look at the 50 countries where it is most dangerous to be a Christian.

In a nutshell, the new report reveals, every day, eight Christians are killed because of their faith and 23 Christians are raped or sexually harassed; every week, 182 Christian churches or buildings are attacked and 102 Christian homes, shops or businesses are attacked, burned, or destroyed; every month, 309 Christians are imprisoned unjustly.

The most acute persecution of Christians occurs in North Korea, the report found, but Afghanistan is close behind in the number two slot.

In the case of North Korea, persecution is driven by a virulent atheistic Communist ideology which views the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 Christians as traitors of the state because their allegiance is to God, not supreme leader Kim Jong Un. Moreover, they also form part of the lowest “hostile class” in the country’s social stratification system called Songbun.




North Korean defector Kwak Jeong-ae, 65, shows a drawing about North Korea during an interview in Uijeongbu, South Korea. Experts and defectors say most of North Korea’s underground Christians do not engage in the extremely dangerous work of proselytizing. Instead, they largely keep their beliefs to themselves or within their immediate families. (AP Photo/Lee Jin-man)

The mere possession of a Christian Bible in North Korea is grounds for arrest, torture, and life imprisonment in a labor camp, which means to a death sentence. Currently, some 50,000 to 75,000 Christians live inside North Korea’s massive prison system, where starvation and physical and mental abuse are part and parcel of their sentence.

Open Doors has monitored global Christian persecution since 1992 and launched its Watch List in 2002, which has been topped by North Korea every year.

In the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, on the other hand, Christians are also seen as traitors, but traitors to Islam rather than to an atheist state. The country is 99 percent Muslim, with some 90 percent Sunni and the other 9.7 percent Shia. Open Doors reports the radical Islamic Taliban continues to increase in strength, rendering the lives of the few thousands of secret Christians forfeit.

According to Afghan law, citizens may not become Christians and conversion is seen as apostasy as well as treason, and converts are often killed by their family, clan, or tribe.

Following North Korea and Afghanistan, the 2020 Watch List is similar to recent years. Somalia ranks number three, followed by Libya (no. four), Pakistan (no. five), Eritrea (no. six), Sudan (no. seven), Yemen (no. eight), Iran (no. nine), and India (no. ten).

It is worth noting that in eight of the top ten countries where Christian persecution is highest, Islamist ideology is the prime driver of the hostility.

Follow @tdwilliamsrome




To: Mrjns who wrote (181364)1/17/2020 11:38:08 AM
From: FJB2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
Mrjns

  Respond to of 455617
 
thefederalist.com

Andrew McCabe: Overseeing A Fair FISA Process Is Really Hard
David Marcus







On Thursday afternoon, New York University Law School hosted a panel discussion on reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a federal law that allows courts to grant federal agencies warrants to secretly spy on American citizens.

The panel was held by Just Security, an online forum for analysis of national security. Moderated by The Atlantic magazine’s Adam Sewer, speakers were Liza Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center; Cato Institute senior fellow Julian Sanchez; Andrew Weismann, a lead prosecutor in Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel’s Office; and recently fired Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

After registration a light lunch was available, then the assembled awkwardly walked into the auditorium, balancing plates and coats, cups and briefcases. Then we sat waiting.

A loud gentleman with a nonspecific New York accent laughed behind me and said, “Why is Andrew McCabe on a panel about FISA? To explain how to abuse it?” No sooner had the panel taken the stage than someone filming with a selfie stick started peppering McCabe with questions about Operation Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI’s secret investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. He was asked to leave and did, but these two incidents indicated why I was there.

The actual panel began with a brief description of the secretive FISA process through which surveillance of Americans allegedly suspected of being foreign agents operates. Almost entirely lacking in transparency, for claimed national security reasons, the process lacks the accountability of the domestic criminal surveillance process, because there is little no adversarial challenge to it. It must merely jump through more hoops and agencies, which counterintuitively all panelists seemed to agree made the process more, not less, susceptible to abuse because this supposedly diffuses accountability among more nameless actors who cannot then be held to account for their specific actions.

There were basically three teams. Goitein and Sanchez were the most critical of the FISA process and most anxious to have Congress make broad changes. They were also most likely to assign blame to the FBI’s handling of FISA, specifically the applications to wiretap former Trump campaign aide Carter Page.

McCabe, not surprisingly, took the side of himself and the FBI he directed. While admitting mistakes were made, he almost seemed to suggest they were inevitable and nobody’s fault. At one point referring to exculpatory evidence for Page, some of which the FBI had hidden from the FISA court, he explained that some of it was buried in the middle of a 72-page interview report. You know, they missed it. But always in the same direction.

As to why these errors outlined the recent inspector general’s report never seemed to be exculpatory to Trump, Goitein and Sanchez both cited confirmation basis, and Sanchez more specifically a culture in the FBI that turns a blind eye to evidence that helps the targets of their investigation. And this is really the crux of the issue. The FISA Court and the FBI lawyers work in concert. It was even suggested their staffs might be too cozy, and there is little to no check on their power.

This is where Weismann tried to play the middle. Although very critical of the Page FISA application, even more so than Sanchez, he was also in general deferential to the FBI. But he was the first person to bring up an existing check on the FBI that is almost never used, amicus curiae. Leslie McAdoo Gordon has a deep dive of it here, but it is basically a group of lawyers with security clearance who can play devil’s advocate on FISA applications.

The problem is that this almost never happens. All of the panelists agree that the use of amicus curiae should be expanded. Weismann indicated that the first Page application was so shoddy that it was “not close,” maybe something an amicus could have discovered. One wonders also why the FISA court granted the abuse of Page’s rights on “shoddy” grounds. Again McCabe hedged, wondering if an amicus could really have enough knowledge of the case to find the mistakes.

Another reform advanced was the idea of informing those watched by FISA that had they had been after the case was over. In criminal searches this is the norm, and provides the opportunity to challenge the validity of the warrant. In FISA cases, such potential accountability does not exist.

Accountability was really the name of the game. It was suggest that a kind of watchdog group, or “red team,” could be established to review the applications. It would be impossible to do so for all of the vast number of applications per year, but even if just a percentage were reviewed the FBI would know the possibility of getting caught doing something wrong exists.

The main takeaway of the event was that the IG report so damning about the FBI’s handling of Page’s application was a very rare check on FISA power. And if errors were found in so high profile a case, how many more be going unchecked in more run of the mill cases? The profound balance at work here is protecting national security interests and the civil liberties of Americans at the same time. Both, it seems cannot be done extremely well at the same time.

The failed attempt to take down Donald Trump in the Russia investigation, much of which sprang from the Page applications, shows the importance of reforming this system. Whether the mistakes that harmed Trump were a result of human error or political bias, something Inspector General Michael Horowitz would neither confirm nor deny, they threw the country into a tumult we have not recovered from.

For this to never happen again, the FBI and the FISA courts need serious checks on their power. Nothing I saw at the panel gave me the slightest bit of hope we are anywhere near achieving that.


David Marcus is the Federalist's New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.



To: Mrjns who wrote (181364)1/17/2020 11:56:24 AM
From: FJB3 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
locogringo
Mrjns

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 455617