Zaporizhzhia: China ‘very concerned’ after Russia seizes Ukrainian nuclear power plant

Shweta Sharma
Fri, March 4, 2022

Surveillance camera footage shows a flare landing at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant during shelling in Enerhodar, Zaporizhia blast

 (Zaporizhzhya NPP via REUTERS)

China urged “all sides to exercise restraint” to ensure the safety of the Zaporizhzhia power plant in Ukraine, after Russian military forces launched an overnight attack to seize Europe’s biggest nuclear facility.

A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said on Friday that Beijing is “very concerned” about the ongoing situation.

“We will monitor the situation and call on all sides to exercise restraint, avoid escalation and ensure the safety of relevant nuclear facilities,” foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told a daily briefing.

China, a close ally of Russia, which has so far stopped short of condemning Moscow for the unprovoked attack on Ukraine, released a statement after a fire broke out at the nuclear power plant after shelling by Russian forces.

The fire at an adjacent five-story training facility sparked worldwide fears of a potential nuclear disaster in entire Europe.

Ukraine’s Emergency Services said they managed to extinguish the fire with broke out at a building outside the plant’s premises. The Ukrainian authorities claimed the plant has been seized by Russian troops.

The Ukrainian president on Friday sounded an ominous warning by referring to it as a repeat of 1986 Chernobyl disaster and accused Moscow of resorting to “nuclear terror”.

“If there is an explosion, it is the end of everything. The end of Europe,” he said.

The attack on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant was condemned by world leaders who called out Russian president Vladimir Putin as “horrific” and “reckless” attack endangering the safety of the whole of Europe.

Surveillance footage that captured the incident showed a blast lighting up the night sky before sending plumes of smoke out the plant.

In a statement on Facebook, Ukraine’s emergency services confirmed that “at 06:20 [04:20 GMT] the fire in the training building of Zaporizhzhia NPP in Energodar was extinguished. There are no victims.”

The UN’s nuclear watchdog, International Atomic Energy Agency said that it was putting its “incident and emergency centre in full 24/7 response mode due to serious situation” at the nuclear power plant.

China’s Xi Jinping-led government has tried to distance itself from Russia’s aggression in Ukraine while avoiding criticising Moscow. It also denounced trade and financial sanctions on Russia and did not announce any humanitarian aid to war-torn Ukraine.

A China-led development bank, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), on Thursday suspended business ties with Russia and Belarus, in a sign of Beijing’s limits of its support to the country.

“Under these circumstances, and in the best interests of the Bank, Management has decided that all activities relating to Russia and Belarus are on hold and under review,” the Beijing-based bank said in a statement on Thursday.

The multilateral development bank did not give the reason for the suspension in business with two countries, but said “its thoughts and sympathy to everyone affected”.

What China thinks of the global economic war against Russia

March 3, 2022


China has long expressed its displeasure with what it calls the US’s “financial hegemony” and its corresponding ability to slap sanctions on foreign countries.

Now, as the US and Europe hit Russia with unprecedented sanctions over its invasion of Ukraine, Chinese officials, academics, and experts are grappling with the implications of the unfolding full-scale global economic and financial war.

No to sanctions, yes to economic coercion?

Officially, Beijing has opposed the use of sanctions against Russia, deeming them illegal, and counterproductive.

“As far as financial sanctions are concerned, we do not approve of these, especially the unilaterally launched sanctions because they do not work well and have no legal grounds,” Guo Shuqing, China’s top banking regulator, told a news conference yesterday (March 2). He also played down effects of the sanctions on China’s economy and financial sector.

Meanwhile, the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday that “[b]lindly…imposing sanctions and creating division and confrontation will only further complicate the situation, and result in a rapid negative spillover of the crisis.”

Yet China’s opposition to sanctions does not seem to stop it from deploying economic coercion against businesses and countries that anger it. Most recently, China has blocked Lithuanian goods and launched a state-led corporate boycott of multinationals with ties to the European country. That follows an unofficial Chinese boycott of Australian coal that began in late 2020.

Global integration as protection against sanctions

So far, sanctions on Moscow have included exemptions for energy to allow continued exports of oil and gas supplies that power the world’s economies—particularly Europe’s. That Russia’s integration with the global economy is what earns it a small degree of reprieve from sanctions is not lost on observers in China.

Facing the risk of uses of sanctions by the west in the future, “we need to continue to increase our efforts to integrate into the world economic system,” writes Jin Zhong (link in Chinese), a macro investor and columnist for the nationalist news site Guancha. “Only with a deeper and broader integration with other countries’ economies and investments will the so-called economic sanctions have a ‘half-hearted’ effect.”

At the same time as China weaves itself into the global economic fabric, however, it should also become less reliant on the US, writes Song Guoyou, a professor at Fudan University. “The international community has both seen the full extent of the US willingness and ability to use financial sanctions externally and is further concerned about the real national security risks of excessive financial dependence on the US,” he argued (link in Chinese) in a commentary this week.

One area where China has already seen such risk is when it comes to chips, after the US used export controls against Chinese smartphone maker Huawei.
China’s homegrown SWIFT alternative

Some have argued that Russia’s expulsion from SWIFT, the global financial messaging system, will boost China’s own cross-border payment system CIPS. Yet CIPS is currently still dependent on SWIFT.

In light of this potential vulnerability, China should urgently and “vigorously promote the internationalization of the renminbi, focusing especially on the development CIPS and the digital yuan,” wrote Ming Ming, an analyst at Citic Securities.

The post What China thinks of the global economic war against Russia appeared first on Quartz.

RIGHT WING COMMENTARY; ANTI CANCEL CULTURE
Canceling China Will Not Be as Easy as Canceling Russia

 By Gary Bauer | March 4, 2022 | 

Displayed are Chinese and American toy soldiers. (Photo credit: PETER PARKS/AFP/GettyImages)

Cancel Culture has come for Russia. In response to Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Russia has been largely cut off from the global financial system. Major credit card companies and electronic payment platforms like Apple Pay cut off their Russian customers. Russian assets are being seized all over the world.

Russian airlines have been banned from American, Canadian, and European airspace. Major movie companies like Disney, Paramount, and Sony are canceling movie releases in Russia. (No "Sonic the Hedgehog 2" for you, Vlad!) Even Russian vodka is now "verboten."

And the sanctions are hurting. There was a run on the banks as Russians rushed to grab whatever cash they could get their hands on. The Russian stock market plunged 30%. The ruble collapsed. The Russian central bank was forced to double interest rates to 20%.

I'm not suggesting the West's "economic blitzkrieg" isn't justified. But the reason it was so easy to cancel Russia is because Russia does not have its economic tentacles all over the world.

There are no Russian centers spewing Russian propaganda on our college campuses. Instead, we have Confucius Institutes spewing communist Chinese propaganda on our college campuses.

Our corporate CEOs are not dreaming of wealth made in Moscow. They're dreaming of wealth made in Beijing.

There are few Russian products, other than oil and vodka, that we depend on. We don't need Russia's oil, and it's easy to cancel vodka. But if the pandemic proved anything, it proved just how dependent we are on communist China for just about everything.

When Americans demanded COVID tests, where did the Biden Administration go to get all those tests? Not to American companies, but to communist Chinese companies. (The irony is breathtaking!)

Our political establishment, the great family dynasties of American politics both Democrats and Republicans (and you know who I'm talking about), are complicit in the transfer of massive amounts of American wealth to communist China. They sent our factories and our jobs to communist China in exchange for cheap goods.

When Donald Trump started to crack down on communist China, there were fears he might deprive American teenagers of TikTok. Oh, the inhumanity! Meanwhile, there's an actual genocide taking place in communist China, but you know, priorities.

Yet even as we see all this, our country is STILL moving toward increasing our dependence on communist China.

Joe Biden talked a good game in his State of the Union address about "Buy American." But he's waging war against the great American energy industry, while he's pushing solar and wind power, which the communist Chinese control.

I would love to think that when communist China eventually moves to seize Taiwan – and we all know it will – we will see the same zealous determination to punish communist China as we have to punish Russia. But I fear we will see the exact opposite.

Powerful segments of American society won't be beating the drums of war. They will instead be apologizing for communist China, trying to protect their bank accounts.

Yes, Vladimir Putin is dangerous, but Russia is a declining power. Its economy is one-tenth of ours. Its empire is over.

Communist China, however, is a rising power. Its economy rivals ours. It is daily engaged in provocative maneuvers to intimidate other nations. Its tentacles are spreading all over the world.

In fact, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently suggested to NBC News that he was "blown away" by the scale of communist China's espionage efforts in the United States, adding that the Bureau is opening up a new case against possible communist Chinese spies every 12 hours.

Wray said, "There is no country that presents a broader, more severe threat to our innovation, our ideas, and our economic security than China." And he warned that China's efforts are becoming "more brazen [and] more damaging than ever before."

Unbelievably, the Biden Administration just shut down a Department of Justice program to root out Chinese spies. While the left obsessed over what Putin might have on Donald Trump, perhaps we should be asking, "What does Beijing have on Joe Biden?"

One final irony: We're right to boycott Russian products to isolate the Russian economy in response to Putin's aggression. But make no mistake about it: Communist China will take full advantage of this. They are playing the long game, while we obsess over the latest images on the nightly news.

As Sen. Marco Rubio accurately stated, Communist China is "the real long-term problem for this country....China is Russia times 1,000."

We can punish Russia all we want. But at the end of the day, communist China remains our greatest enemy.

Gary Bauer is the president of American Values, an educational nonprofit. He previously served as President Ronald Reagan's chief domestic policy advisor and undersecretary of education, President Donald Trump's appointee to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and president of the Family Research Council.

Why the Chinese Internet Is Cheering Russia’s Invasion

As the world overwhelmingly condemns the assault on Ukraine, online opinion in China is mostly pro-Russia, pro-war and pro-Putin.

A bombed Ukrainian home in south Kyiv. Many Chinese social media users have praised President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and accepted his justification for invading Ukraine.

Credit...Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

By Li Yuan
Feb. 28, 2022
阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版

Sign up for the Russia-Ukraine War Briefing. Every evening, we'll send you a summary of the day's biggest news. Get it sent to your inbox.

If President Vladimir V. Putin is looking for international support and approval for his invasion of Ukraine, he can turn to the Chinese internet.

Its users have called him “Putin the Great,” “the best legacy of the former Soviet Union” and “the greatest strategist of this century.” They have chastised Russians who protested against the war, saying they had been brainwashed by the United States.

Mr. Putin’s speech on Thursday, which essentially portrayed the conflict as one waged against the West, won loud cheers on Chinese social media. Many people said they were moved to tears. “If I were Russian, Putin would be my faith, my light,” wrote @jinyujiyiliangxiaokou, a user of the Twitter-like platform Weibo.

As the world overwhelmingly condemns Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese internet, for the most part, is pro-Russia, pro-war and pro-Putin.

Mr. Putin’s portrayal of Russia as a victim of the West’s political, ideological and military aggression has resonated deeply with many on social media. It dovetails with China’s narrative that the United States and its allies are afraid of China’s rise and the alternative world order it could create.

For its part, the Chinese government, Russia’s most powerful partner, has been more circumspect. Officials have declined to call Russia’s invasion an invasion, nor have they condemned it. But they have not endorsed it, either.

Under Xi Jinping, its top leader, China has taken a more confrontational stance on foreign policy in recent years. Its diplomats, the state media’s journalists and some of the government’s most influential advisers are far more hawkish than they used to be.

Together, they have helped to shape a generation of online warriors who view the world as a zero-sum game between China and the West, especially the United States.

A translation of Mr. Putin’s speech on Thursday by a nationalistic news site went viral, to say the least. The Weibo hashtag #putin10000wordsspeechfulltext got 1.1 billion views within 24 hours.

“This is an exemplary speech of war mobilization,” said one Weibo user, @apjam.

“Why was I moved to tears by the speech?” wrote @ASsicangyueliang. “Because this is also how they’ve been treating China.”

Mr. Putin with Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, in Moscow in 2019. They said this month that their countries’ friendship had “no limits.”

Credit...Sputnik/Reuters

Mostly young, nationalistic online users like these, known as “little pinks” in China, have taken their cue from the so-called “wolf warrior” diplomats who seem to relish verbal battle with journalists and their Western counterparts.

The day before Russia’s invasion, for instance, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said in a daily press briefing that the United States was the “culprit” behind the tensions over Ukraine.

“When the U.S. drove five waves of NATO expansion eastward all the way to Russia’s doorstep and deployed advanced offensive strategic weapons in breach of its assurances to Russia, did it ever think about the consequences of pushing a big country to the wall?” asked the spokeswoman, Hua Chunying.

The next day, as Ms. Hua was peppered with questions about whether China considered Russia’s “special military operation” an invasion, she turned the briefing into a critique of the United States. “You may go ask the U.S.: they started the fire and fanned the flames,” she said. “How are they going to put out the fire now?”

She bristled at the U.S. State Department’s comment that China should respect state sovereignty and territorial integrity, a longstanding tenet of Chinese foreign policy.

“The U.S. is in no position to tell China off,” she said. Then she mentioned the three journalists who were killed in NATO’s bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999, a tragic incident that prompted widespread anti-U.S. protests in China.

“NATO still owes the Chinese people a debt of blood,” she said.

That sentence became the top Weibo hashtag as Russia was bombing Ukraine. The hashtag, created by the state-run People’s Daily newspaper, has been viewed more than a billion times. In posts below it, users called the United States a “warmonger” and a “paper tiger.”

Other Weibo users were bemused. “If I only browsed Weibo,” wrote the user @____26156, “I would have believed that it was the United States that had invaded Ukraine.”

The strong pro-war sentiment online has shocked many Chinese. Some WeChat users on my timeline warned that they would block any Putin supporters. Many people shared articles about China’s long, troubled history with its neighbor, including Russian annexation of Chinese territory and a border conflict with the Soviet Union in the late 1960s.

One widely shared WeChat article was titled, “All those who cheer for war are idiots,” plus an expletive. “The grand narrative of nationalism and great-power chauvinism has squeezed out their last bit of humanity,” the author wrote.

It was eventually deleted by WeChat for violating regulations.

Hua Chunying, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said the United States “started the fire and fanned the flames” that led to the war in Ukraine.

Credit...Carlos Garcia Rawlins/Reuters

The pro-Russia sentiment is in line with the two countries’ growing official solidarity, culminating in a joint statement on Feb. 4, when Mr. Putin met with Mr. Xi in Beijing at the Winter Olympics.

The countries’ friendship has “no limits,” they declared.

Given that the leaders met just weeks before the invasion, it would be understandable to conclude that China should have had better knowledge of the Kremlin’s plans. But growing evidence suggests that the echo chamber of China’s foreign policy establishment might have misled not only the country’s internet users, but its own officials.

My colleague Edward Wong reported that over a period of three months, senior U.S. officials held meetings with their Chinese counterparts and shared intelligence that detailed Russia’s troop buildup around Ukraine. The Americans asked the Chinese officials to intervene with the Russians and tell them not to invade.

Rising concerns. Russia’s attack on Ukraine has started reverberating across the globe, adding to the stock market’s woes and spooking investors. The conflict could cause​​ dizzying spikes in prices for energy and food, and severely affect various countries and industries.

The cost of energy. Oil prices already are the highest since 2014, and they have jumped as the conflict has escalated. Russia is the third-largest producer of oil, providing roughly one of every 10 barrels the global economy consumes.

Gas supplies. Europe gets nearly 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, and it is likely to be walloped with higher heating bills. Natural gas reserves are running low, and European leaders have accused Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin, of reducing supplies to gain a political edge.

Food prices. Russia is the world’s largest supplier of wheat and, together with Ukraine, accounts for nearly a quarter of total global exports. In countries like Egypt and Turkey, that flow of grain makes up more than 70 percent of wheat imports.

Shortages of essential metals. The price of palladium, used in automotive exhaust systems and mobile phones, has been soaring amid fears that Russia, the world’s largest exporter of the metal, could be cut off from global markets. The price of nickel, another key Russian export, has also been rising.

Financial turmoil. Global banks are bracing for the effects of sanctions intended to restrict Russia’s access to foreign capital and limit its ability to process payments in dollars, euros and other currencies crucial for trade. Banks are also on alert for retaliatory cyberattacks by Russia.

The Chinese brushed the Americans off, saying that they did not think an invasion was in the works. U.S. intelligence showed that on one occasion, Beijing shared the Americans’ information with Moscow.

Recent speeches by some of China’s most influential advisers to the government on international relations suggest that the miscalculation may have been based on deep distrust of the United States. They saw it as a declining power that wanted to push for war with false intelligence because it would benefit the United States, financially and strategically.

Jin Canrong, a professor at Renmin University in Beijing, told the state broadcaster China Central Television, or CCTV, on Feb. 20 that the U.S. government had been talking about imminent war because an unstable Europe would help Washington, as well as the country’s financial and energy industries. After the war started, he admitted to his 2.4 million Weibo followers that he was surprised.

Just before the invasion, Shen Yi, a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, ridiculed the Biden administration’s predictions of war in a 52-minute video program. “Why did ‘Sleepy Joe’ use such poor-quality intelligence on Ukraine and Russia?” he asked, using Donald Trump’s favorite nickname for President Biden.

Earlier in the week, Mr. Shen had held a conference call about the Ukraine crisis with a brokerage’s clients, titled, “A war that would not be fought.”

When the fighting began, he, too, acknowledged to his Weibo followers, who number 1.6 million, that he had been wrong.

Nationalistic emotions on social media were also sparked by the Chinese Embassy in Ukraine. Unlike most embassies in Kyiv, it didn’t urge its citizens to evacuate. Hours into the war, it advised Chinese people to post the country’s red flag conspicuously on their vehicles when traveling, indicating that it would provide protection.

The state-owned People’s Daily, CCTV and many top government agencies posted about that on Weibo. Many people used the hashtag #theChineseredwillprotectyou, referring to the flag.

The idea echoed a movie, the 2017 Chinese blockbuster “Wolf Warrior 2,” which ends with the hero taking fellow passengers safely through a war zone in Africa as he holds a Chinese flag high. “It’s Chinese,” an armed fighter says. “Hold your fire.”

Two days later, the embassy reversed course, urging Chinese citizens not to display anything that would disclose their identity. Chinese people living in Ukraine advised fellow citizens not to make comments on social media that could jeopardize their security.

As the war drags on, and especially if Beijing calibrates its position in the face of an international backlash, the online pro-Russia sentiment in China could ebb. In the meantime, other internet users are getting impatient with the nationalists.

“Putin should enlist the Chinese little pinks and send them to the frontline,” wrote the Weibo user @xinshuiqingliu. “They’re his die-hard fans and extremely brave fighters.”


Li Yuan writes the New New World column, which focuses on the intersection of technology, business and politics in China and across Asia. @liyuan6
A version of this article appears in print on Feb. 28, 2022, Section B, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: In China, Many Take Putin’s Side

BLACKLIST INDIA

India is exploring a rupee-ruble arrangement for smooth bilateral trade

with Russia



India is looking to strengthen its rupee-ruble arrangement to ensure seamless trade with Russia amid disruptions caused by Western sanctions following the Ukraine war.

Indian banks rely on The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, to settle international transactions related to trade and remittances. SWIFT allows secure and quick communication among global lenders for cross-border payments. However, seven Russian banks have been now excluded from the messaging system.

Indian traders have naturally raised concerns. India and Russia had bilateral trade of $8.1 billion in the fiscal year ended March 2021, with exports to Russia at $2.6 billion and imports at $5.5 billion.

The rupee-ruble arrangement is not new

It was in 2014 that India and Russia agreed to make payments through the rupee-ruble trade after India faced a US sanctions threat over a defence deal with Russia.

But, there’s a problem. The ruble is not fully convertible, so not easily traded in forex markets with little-to-no restrictions. This results in low trade volumes for the currency pair, currency analysts said. Since the war last week, the ruble has plunged to its record low against the US dollar.

Currently, the Russian ruble is cheaper than the rupee. It means India needs to pay less for its imports from Russia.

The two countries will now have to consider alternatives like smaller Russian banks, local currency trade, and lenders in other countries. Russian companies can also open a rupee trading account with Indian banks, like the earlier arrangements with Iran.

Besides, India’s flagship payments system Unified Payments Interface could also be potentially linked to Russia’s own System for Transfer of Financial Messages.

File source

Rep. Cori Bush to Biden: 'You didn't

mention saving Black lives once in

this speech'

Garin Flowers

·National Reporter and Producer

Wed, March 2, 2022

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., was seemingly unhappy on Tuesday night after President Biden announced his support for funding police departments.

In his first State of the Union address, Biden told Congress: “The answer is not to defund the police, it’s to fund the police. Fund them. Fund them.”

“Fund them with resources and training they need to protect our communities,” the president continued.

While his message received loud praise in the audience, with a standing ovation from both his party and Republicans, Democrats like Bush said Biden has the wrong idea.

“With all due respect, Mr. President. You didn’t mention saving Black lives once in this speech,” Bush tweeted. “All our country has done is given more funding to police. The result? 2021 set a record for fatal police shootings."

“Defund the police. Invest in our communities.”

A flagship Black Lives Matter account shared a tweet suggesting it also wasn't happy with the president’s stance on the issue, using a screenshot of Rep. Maxine Waters's face, from at some point in the night, to deliver its message by meme.

Other Democrats, however, including New York City Mayor Eric Adams, as well as leaders in other liberal cities, have called for increased police budgets to combat crime.

Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., told MSNBC that “the defund-police movement is dead in New York City — and good riddance,” adding, “Any elected official who’s advocating for the abolition and/or even the defunding of police is out of touch with reality and should not be taken seriously.”

Similarly, Rep. Val Demings, D-Fla., the former chief of the Orlando Police Department, used Biden’s remarks as a moment to support funding law enforcement, even touting her new legislation that would do just that.

She tweeted: “Public safety is the foundation on which we build great communities,” and then included a link to her bill, which would provide grants to help municipalities with deescalation, domestic violence and officer safety training, among other things.

Republicans are seemingly using this opportunity to lump Democrats together and criticize them for jumping ship on the idea of defunding.

Republican strategist Rick Wilson tweeted: “Biden guts the ‘Defund the police’ stupidity.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., said: “Is the entire Democratic Party going to act like they didn’t just defund and demonize the police for the last 2 years? #SOTU.”

Hundreds of police officers gather for the funeral of fallen NYPD officer Wilbert Mora at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York on Feb. 2. (Eren Abdullahogullari/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

During his address, Biden opened his remarks on policing in America with a story about how he visited the NYPD days after funerals were held for two of its officers, Wilbert Mora and Jason Rivera, who were fatally shot in January after a man opened fire on them with a stolen gun.

Rising crime in some major U.S. cities has led Democratic leaders to reverse course or take a stance against defunding police departments.

But Biden also aimed to appease critics of police when he touched on two controversial arrest tactics that have gained notoriety following the deaths of several Black Americans.

“That’s why the Justice Department required body cameras, banned chokeholds and restricted no-knock warrants for its officers,” he said.

No-knock warrants came under fire in 2020 when officers in Louisville, Ky., stormed, unannounced, into the apartment of Breonna Taylor, a Black woman and paramedic, fatally shooting her after her boyfriend fired on them, thinking they were intruders.

More recently, several Minneapolis police officers are once again under a microscope after a SWAT team conducted a no-knock warrant at an apartment downtown, shooting and killing Amir Locke, a 22-year-old Black man.

A rally for Amir Locke on Feb. 5 in Minneapolis. Locke was a 22-year-old Black man shot by Minneapolis police executing a search warrant. (Christian Monterrosa File/AP)

Bodycam footage from the Feb. 2 incident captured police storming in, then announcing their presence and seeing Locke, who was noticeably shaken from being suddenly woken up. Officers were following up on a tip involving a murder case, but Locke’s name was not mentioned in the warrant, according to the Minneapolis police chief.

Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump, who is representing Locke's parents, said during a February press conference, “The blood of Amir Locke, the blood of Breonna Taylor, should hopefully call for a ban on no-knock warrants all over the country, President Biden.”

Civil rights attorney Benjamin Crump at a news conference with the families of Amir Locke and others at the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul on Feb. 10. (Kerem Yucel/AFP via Getty Images)

On Tuesday, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., introduced a bill that would limit no-knock warrants, naming it after Locke.

Hours before Biden’s address, she unveiled the legislation, called the Amir Locke End Deadly No-Knock Warrants Act. It would enact "strict limitations on the use of no-knock warrants in drug-related investigations."

The bill directly affects federal agencies but would open up grant funding for state and local law enforcement.

As for Biden, he also touted his American Rescue Plan, which he said provided more than $250 million to cities, states and counties for hiring more police officers and investing in “proven” strategies.

“So let’s not abandon our streets. Or choose between safety and equal justice,” he said.

“Let’s come together to protect our communities, restore trust and hold law enforcement accountable.”

Tankers carrying Russian natural gas to the UK are diverted as British dockworkers refuse to handle the cargo, reports say

Urooba Jamal
Fri, March 4, 2022

Workers at the Isle of Grain LNG terminal refused to unload cargoes of Russian gas.

DANIEL LEAL/AFP via Getty Images

One tanker was scheduled to dock at the Isle of Grain in southeast England on Friday, The Guardian reported.

Workers at the LNG terminal had warned in advance they wouldn't process Russian natural gas.

Dockers are "determined to show their support for the Ukrainian people," a union official said.

British dockworkers have prevented two tankers carrying Russian natural gas from offloading their cargo in the UK in a protest again Russia's invasion of Ukraine, according to reports.

Dockworkers at the Isle of Grain liquefied natural gas terminal in southeast England had insisted that they would not unload cargoes from Russia, The Guardian newspaper reported on Wednesday. On Thursday, the paper reported that the LNG tanker Boris Vilkitsky – which was scheduled to tie up at the terminal on Friday – had been diverted.

A second vessel, the Fedor Litke, has also been diverted, the BBC reported. Both vessels are sailing under the Cyprus flag, it said.

Speaking ahead of the ships' diversions, Matt Lay, the national officer for energy at the union representing the Isle of Grain workers, Unison, said: "The workers at the National Grid terminal don't want to touch the cargo given the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine."

"These staff are determined to show their support for the Ukrainian people and uphold the sanctions imposed against Russia," he added.

The UK government on March 1 banned vessels with any Russian connection from docking in the UK, as part of a package of responses to Moscow's decision to send troops into Ukraine.

A Department of Transport spokesperson told Insider on Friday that the ban applies to vessels that are owned, operated or managed by Russian entities. Cargoes from Russia could be processed if they arrive on vessels from other nations, the spokesperson added.

The Isle of Grain terminal, operated by National Grid, is the largest LNG import facility in Europe and can accommodate 20% of the UK's LNG delivery capacity.

A spokesperson for National Grid, which operates the Isle of Grain terminal told the BBC: "In line with government policy, we do not expect any Russian-linked ships to dock at Grain."

The company did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.

According to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, the UK could spend £6.3 million per day on Russian natural gas this year, generating funds that it warned could be used to fund Russia's invasion in Ukraine, according to a press release on its website.

"Although not at the same level of some other European countries, the UK has been spending billions of pounds on Russian gas that could now be used to fund Putin's war in Ukraine," Simon Cran-McGreehin, the ECIU's head analyst said.

Unison calls for action on Russian ships sanctions

Alan Jones
Fri., March 4, 2022

The sun rises over oil tankers (Steve Parsons/PA) (PA Archive)

A union is warning that ships with a connection to Russia could reach the UK despite a Government ban because of “confusion” over sanctions.

Unison said two tankers, the Boris Vilkitsky and Fedor Litke, carrying gas, have been diverted from the Isle of Grain in Kent.

The union’s head of energy Matt Lay said: “These tankers appear to have gone away for now, but the cargo could be back on other ships within days.

“Transport Secretary Grant Shapps and other ministers must deal with this issue properly.

“Even ships with a clear Russian connection are causing confusion and could slip through the net to reach a UK port.

“Department for Transport rules only cover the ownership and operators of vessels, not the cargo.

“The Government also needs to clarify what it means by operators.

“The Boris Vilkitsky was chartered by a company based in Singapore, but majority Russian-owned.

“It’s not at all clear whether it’s covered by the ban.

“The Transport Secretary claims all ships with Russian connections are now barred from UK ports, but companies are free to get around the rules by hiring ships from other countries to import Russian goods.

“The Government should act right away if these sanctions are to be fit for purpose.”

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps (Aaron Chown/PA) (PA Wire)

A Government spokesperson said: “UK Government ministers have signed legislation banning all ships that are Russian owned, operated, controlled, registered or flagged from entering British ports.

“It is mandatory for all ports and harbours to follow this legislation and the Government will support all ports in exercising their responsibilities.

“We will continue to isolate (Vladimir) Putin through every means as he carries out these illegal and inhumane action.”

Unite joined calls for a loophole to be closed after revealing the case of a tanker sailing under a German flag understood to be carrying Russian oil and heading for the Stanlow terminal in the North West.

General secretary Sharon Graham said: “Unite has today contacted Essar who operate the Stanlow oil refinery to inform the company that due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, Unite workers at the facility will under no circumstances unload any Russian oil regardless of the nationality of the vessel.

“Unite urges Grant Shapps to close this loophole immediately.”

A Government spokesperson said: “It is mandatory for all ports and harbours to follow legislation banning all ships that are Russian owned, operated, controlled, registered or flagged from entering British ports. The Government will support all ports in exercising their responsibilities.

“We’ll continue to monitor the impact of the situation, but the UK has no issue with gas supply, and unlike other countries in Europe, the UK is in no way dependent on Russian gas, with imports making up just 4% of demand.

“Ministers are exploring options to further reduce the already small amount of imports we do get from Russia and we continue to urge Europe to put in place plans to end their dependence in Russian gas.”

Stanlow operator Essar said in a statement: “Essar remains deeply concerned by the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Ukraine and is fully complying with the statutory framework implemented by the UK Government with regard to Russia-related entities. Earlier this week, we turned away two cargos of non-Russian origin crude oil which would have been delivered in Russian-flagged tankers.

“We can confirm that a German-flagged vessel was approved to berth at Tranmere Oil Terminal by the Port Authority on Thursday March 3.

“This vessel set sail for Tranmere on February 22, before the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent introduction of UK Government sanctions.

“For a number of days, we have been working urgently to find alternative sources of diesel while simultaneously ensuring uninterrupted supply of fuel to the North West of England.

“Essar will continue to comply fully and will respond promptly to any changes the UK Government may make to the statutory framework of sanctions.”

Gun lobbyist wrote GOP lawmakers’ ‘permitless carry’ speech, document data shows


JAKE ZUCKERMAN
Fri, March 4, 2022

Tom Brinkman

Last April, two Republicans in the Ohio House told lawmakers their “constitutional carry” bill would ease the bureaucratic hassle of undergoing training and a background check to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon.

They didn’t write the speech.

Chris Dorr, the “no compromise” gun lobbyist and executive director of Ohio Gun Owners, did. Metadata attached to a copy of their testimony on the legislature’s website shows his name as the author of the document.

On April 15, 2021, Reps. Tom Brinkman, (R-Mount Lookout) and Kris Jordan stood before the House Government Oversight Committee introducing House Bill 227. The bill would allow anyone 21 and older who can lawfully own a weapon to carry it concealed on their persons.

More: DeWine to headline fundraiser for Tom Brinkman, Cincinnati City Council candidate and author of controversial charter amendment

Dorr said in text messages and an interview Thursday he “maybe/probably” wrote the speech, but he couldn’t remember for sure. In it, the two lawmakers said carrying an openly displayed firearm in Ohio is already legal. So why should carrying a concealed weapon without a permit be illegal?

“Most gun owners know that openly carrying their firearm is not always practical,” Brinkman said.

“In order to avoid unnecessary hassle from the public or law enforcement, one may decide to put a coat or jacket over their firearm. Sadly, that individual instantly turns into a felon if they have not gone through some the government-mandated rigmarole first, which is a violation of their God-given rights stipulated under the Second Amendment.”

Brinkman said he doesn’t know who wrote it but it’s possible his staff went back and forth with Dorr to “polish” the speech.

“I have no idea who writes my testimony. I never write my testimony. I never write my floor speeches. That’s what staff is for,” Brinkman said.

Lawmakers on Wednesday passed a separate, Senate version of a permitless carry bill and sent it to Gov. Mike DeWine. The Jordan-Brinkman is what’s known as a “companion bill” — part of a legislative strategy in which proponents run two versions of the same legislation in both the House and Senate at the same time to boost its odds of becoming law.

More: Ohio Republican Party endorses Gov. Mike DeWine over protests of some in meeting

Dorr writing the testimony is among the clearest signs of the close working relationship between gun lobbyists and Republican lawmakers.

For instance, Sen. George Lang, a West Chester Township Republican, co-sponsored the permitless carry bill that was sent to DeWine. He owns an insurance company that sells firearms liability policies for those who shoot others in purported self-defense. His business partners include the Buckeye Firearms Association’s executive director and another lawyer with the lobbying group.

Financial disclosures show Lang has earned more than $100,000 annually from the business since at least 2016. He seemingly acknowledged the possibility of a conflict of interest in a 2020 interview.

‘We tried to fix the bill’

On Tuesday, Republicans on the House Government Oversight Committee adopted two last-minute amendments to the permitless carry bill sent to the governor, one of which gun owners said could allow law enforcement to stop and frisk people who are spotted carrying a concealed weapon.

During the floor debate Wednesday, Brinkman tried to force an amendment on the floor removing the committee’s changes, but was blocked on procedural grounds by House Speaker Bob Cupp, R-Lima.

Both the House and the Senate passed the bill shortly afterward.

Dorr, wearing sunglasses for a video posted to his Facebook account Wednesday, praised Brinkman for trying to scrap the committee changes.

“We tried to fix the bill on the house floor,” he said. “Of course, they used procedure to cut that down. He deserves a big shoutout.”

Besides the local organization, Dorr and his brothers represent affiliate gun owner organizations in 11 states. They generally seek to outflank Republicans and other gun lobby organizations from the right via a no-compromise advocacy and grass roots approach. In 2021, Dorr and his brothers were the subject of a Pulitzer prize winning podcast series investigating “[the] ‘no compromise’ gun rights activists that illuminated the profound differences and deepening schism between American conservatives.”

Both Dorr and Brinkman said Thursday they expect DeWine will ultimately sign the bill.

Dorr said DeWine tends to drag his feet on gun issues but will likely pull through — he’s facing primary challenges from the right and doesn’t want to make the election about guns. Brinkman said while the vote Wednesday fell short of the 60-vote supermajority required for a veto, the Republican caucus could muster requisite support from its 64 members.

“My feeling of, non-concern — my lack of concern is I know we’ve passed it and can override his veto,” Brinkman said. “Whether it’s one step or two.”

Jordan did not respond to inquiries left with his office.

This report was originally published in the Ohio Capitol Journal.

BIPARTISNSHIP

Rep. Rashida Tlaib says she was 'naïve' for not understanding 'how bipartisan Islamophobia is in Congress'

Bryan Metzger
Thu, March 3, 2022

From left: Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota at a press conference on August 19, 2019.AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Rep. Rashida Tlaib said she's encountered Islamophobia on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

"I think there's a tremendous amount of fear" about Muslims in Congress, Tlaib told The New York Times.

Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar are the first two Muslim women to service in Congress.

Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan says that Islamophobia in Congress is a bipartisan affair, suggesting that in addition to Republicans, some of her Democratic colleagues hold bigoted views about Muslims.

In a profile in The New York Times, Tlaib reflected on her time in Congress so far and particularly on how her identity as both a Muslim woman and a Palestinian has shaped her experiences in ways she hadn't anticipated. She described encountering both subtle and blatant bigotry when she and Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar first arrived in Congress in 2019.

"I guess I was naive," Tlaib told the Times, "in not understanding how bipartisan Islamophobia is in Congress."

Tlaib and Omar were the first Muslim women elected to Congress in American history, and are among the progressive "Squad" that includes Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Tlaib said that some colleagues were shocked to learn that most American Muslims are Black, while one colleague touched Omar's hijab.

"I think there's a tremendous amount of fear," Tlaib told the Times.

Tlaib also said that it feels as if her Palestinian identity supersedes other identities and experiences that she has.

"I feel like no one wants to see me as anyone but Palestinian," Tlaib told the Times. "I'm a mother, I'm a woman, I have gone through a lot being the daughter of two immigrants in the United States. I'm also the big sister of 13 younger siblings. I'm also a neighbor in a predominantly Black city."

Both Tlaib and Omar have been targeted with Islamophobic remarks from their colleagues during their time in Congress. Last year, Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado joked that Omar was a suicide bomber, prompting calls to remove her from her committee assignments. The House later passed Omar's bill to establish an envoy to combat Islamophobia at the State Department, but not before Republicans mocked her bill during committee hearings.

Both have garnered criticism for being outspoken about Palestinian rights; in September, fellow Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida suggested that Tlaib was anti-Semitic after she deemed Israel to be an "apartheid regime" while speaking out against giving Israel an additional $1 billion for Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system.

Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Israeli human rights group B'Tselem have all labeled Israel an apartheid state over the country's treatment of Palestinians both in Israel and in the West Bank and Gaza.

Tlaib told the Times that following Deutch's remarks, colleagues whispered "Are you OK?" to her. "The whispering needs to stop," she said, "and they need to speak up and say, 'That was wrong.'"

SO MUCH FOR BEING PRO-LIFE

U.S. Supreme Court reinstates Boston Marathon bomber's death sentence



 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is pictured in this handout photo presented as evidence by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston

Fri, March 4, 2022
By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reinstated convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's death sentence for his role in the 2013 attack that killed three people and wounded more than 260 others, ruling in favor of the federal government.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices sided with the Justice Department's challenge to a 2020 federal appeals court ruling that had upheld Tsarnaev's conviction but overturned his death sentence.

The Supreme Court faulted the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on its findings both that Tsarnaev's right to a fair trial under the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment was violated and that the trial judge wrongly excluded certain evidence about a separate crime.

"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed heinous crimes. The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury. He received one," conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.

The court's six conservative justices were in the majority, with its three liberals dissenting.

President Joe Biden as a candidate promised to work to pass legislation in Congress to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level and set incentives for states to do as well, instead endorsing life sentences without probation or parole. But his administration last year opted to proceed with an appeal initially launched by the Justice Department under his predecessor Donald Trump to defend Tsarnaev's death sentence.

In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with 1st Circuit that evidence about the separate crime, a 2011 triple murder in Waltham, Massachusetts linked to Tsarnaev's older brother Tamerlan, was improperly excluded.

Lawyers for Tsarnaev, who is 28 now and was 19 at the time of the attack, have argued that Tsarnaev played a secondary role in the marathon bombing to his brother, who they called "an authority figure" with "violent Islamic extremist beliefs." As such, the evidence about another crime Tamerlan allegedly committed would be relevant, they argued.

"This evidence may have led some jurors to conclude that Tamerlan's influence was so pervasive that Dzhokhar did not deserve to die for any of the actions he took in connection with the bombings, even those taken outside of Tamerlan's presence," Breyer wrote.

"And it would have taken only one juror's change of mind to have produced a sentence other than death, even if a severe one," added Breyer, who in the past has questioned the constitutionality of the death penalty.

The primary source of the evidence about the other murders, a man named Ibragim Todashev, was killed by an FBI agent in 2013 when he attacked officers during an interview.

The Supreme Court also found that U.S. District Judge George O'Toole, who presided over the trial, did not violate Tsarnaev's right to a trial in front of an impartial jury by failing to properly screen jurors for potential bias following pervasive news coverage of the bombings.

CONVICTED ON ALL COUNTS

The Tsarnaev brothers detonated two homemade pressure-cooker bombs at the marathon's finish line on April 15, 2013, and days later killed a police officer. Tamerlan Tsarnaev died after the gunfight with police.

Jurors convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in 2015 on all 30 counts he faced and determined he deserved execution for a bomb he planted that killed Martin Richard, 8, and Chinese exchange student Lingzi Lu, 23. Restaurant manager Krystle Campbell, 29, was killed by the second bomb.

Marc Fucarile, who lost his right leg in the second blast, said the Supreme Court "did the right thing" and that the three justices who dissented "should be ashamed." But Fucarile said he has no confidence that the death sentence would ultimately be carried out, especially under the Biden administration.

"He got what he deserves," said Fucarile, 43. "I think we need to send a message, you can't just kill innocent people and set off bombs in crowds of people."

No federal inmates were executed for 17 years before Trump oversaw 13 executions in the last six months of his term. Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, last July imposed a moratorium on federal executions while the Justice Department reviews the death penalty.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in March 2021 that Biden continues to have "grave concerns about whether capital punishment, as currently implemented, is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness."

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Nate Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham)

High court reimposes Boston Marathon bomber's death sentence

MARK SHERMAN

Fri, March 4, 2022, 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has reinstated the death sentence for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The justices, by a 6-3 vote Friday, agreed with the Biden administration's arguments that a federal appeals court was wrong to throw out the sentence of death a jury imposed on Tsarnaev for his role in the bombing that killed three people near the finish line of the marathon in 2013.

“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed heinous crimes. The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury. He received one,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, made up of the court’s six conservative justices.

The court reversed the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which ruled in 2020 that the trial judge improperly excluded evidence that could have shown Tsarnaev was deeply influenced by his older brother, Tamerlan, and was somehow less responsible for the carnage. The appeals court also faulted the judge for not sufficiently questioning jurors about their exposure to extensive news coverage of the bombing.

In dissent for the court's three liberal justices, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “In my view, the Court of Appeals acted lawfully in holding that the District Court should have allowed Dzhokhar to introduce this evidence.”

Breyer has called on the court to reconsider capital punishment. “I have written elsewhere about the problems inherent in a system that allows for the imposition of the death penalty ... This case provides just one more example of some of those problems,” he wrote in a section of his dissent his liberal colleagues, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, did not join.

The prospect that Tsarnaev, now 28, will be executed anytime soon is remote. The Justice Department halted federal executions last summer after the Trump administration carried out 13 executions in its final six months.

President Joe Biden has said he opposes the death penalty, but his administration was put in the position of defending Tsarnaev’s sentence at the Supreme Court.

Had Tsarnaev prevailed at the high court, the administration would have had to decide whether to pursue a new death sentence or allow Tsarnaev to serve out the rest of his life in prison.

Tsarnaev’s guilt in the deaths of Lingzi Lu, a 23-year-old Boston University graduate student from China; Krystle Campbell, a 29-year-old restaurant manager from Medford, Massachusetts; and 8-year-old Martin Richard, of Boston, was not at issue, only whether he should be put to death or imprisoned for life.

Tsarnaev was convicted of all 30 charges against him, including conspiracy and use of a weapon of mass destruction and the killing of Massachusetts Institute of Technology Police Officer Sean Collier during the Tsarnaev brothers’ getaway attempt. The appeals court upheld all but a few of his convictions.

Two people who were seriously injured in the bombing and its aftermath praised Friday's outcome on Twitter.

“Congratulations to all who worked tirelessly for justice,” wrote Adrianne Haslet, a professional ballroom dancer who lost a leg in the attacks.

Dic Donohue, a Massachusetts transit police officer who was critically wounded in a firefight with the two marathon bombers, tweeted: “Bottom line: He can’t kill anyone else.”

The main focus at high court arguments in October was on evidence that implicated Tamerlan Tsarnaev in a triple killing in the Boston suburb of Waltham on the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The evidence bolstered the defense team theory that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was indoctrinated and radicalized by his older brother.

The trial judge had rejected that argument, ruling that the evidence linking Tamerlan to the Waltham killings was unreliable and irrelevant to Dzhokhar’s participation in the marathon attack. The judge also said the defense team's argument would only confuse jurors.

One problem with the evidence about the Waltham killings was that both Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Ibragim Todashev, who implicated him, were dead by the time of the trial.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, had been in a gunfight with police and was run over by his brother as he fled, hours before police captured a bloodied and wounded Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston suburb of Watertown.

Todashev was interviewed by investigators after the marathon attack. He told authorities that Tamerlan recruited him to rob the three men, and they bound the men with duct tape before Tamerlan slashed their throats to avoid leaving any witnesses.

In a bizarre twist, while Todashev was being questioned in Florida, he was shot dead after authorities say he attacked the agents. The agent who killed Todashev was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing.

Given the circumstances, Thomas wrote, U.S. District Judge George O'Toole Jr. can't be faulted for excluding Todashev's account because “no matter how Dzhokhar presented the evidence, its bare inclusion risked producing a confusing mini-trial where the only witnesses who knew the truth were dead.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh also voted to reimpose Tsarnaev's death sentence.

Ayanna Pressley slams 'far-right majority' Supreme Court for reinstating the Boston Marathon bomber's death penalty: 'State-sanctioned murder is not justice'

Bryan Metzger

Fri, March 4, 2022, 

Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts at a press conference outside the US Capitol on December 10, 2021.Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

• The Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty for Dzokhar Tsarnaev, one of the Boston Marathon bombers.

• Pressley, a progressive whose district includes most of Boston, slammed the court's decision.

• "State-sanctioned murder is not justice, no matter how heinous the crime," she said.

Democratic Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts condemned the Supreme Court's Friday decision to reinstate the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers.

"The Supreme Court's decision today to reinstate the death penalty in the Tsarnaev case is deeply disappointing, but unsurprising for this far-right majority Court that has shown time and again its contempt for the people," Pressley said in a statement following the court's decision. "The death penalty is a cruel and inhumane punishment that has no place in society."

In August 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit threw out Tsarnaev's federal death sentence because of jury selection issues and bias. President Donald Trump's Department of Justice appealed the decision — a move President Joe Biden's administration affirmed — and the Supreme Court ruled 6-3, along conservative-liberal lines, to overturn the appeals court's decision.

"State-sanctioned murder is not justice, no matter how heinous the crime," said Pressley. "I remain committed to accountability and healing for everyone impacted by the Boston Marathon bombing and I pray for those who are forced to re-live their trauma each time we are reminded of that devastating day."

In 2013, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan planted pipe bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and wounding nearly 200 others. While Tamerlan was later killed during the manhunt that ensued, Dzhokhar was arrested and a federal jury later sentenced him to the death penalty in 2015.

Pressley, a progressive "Squad" member, was first elected to her a district encompassing roughly three fourths of Boston in 2018. She is the lead House co-sponsor of a bill to end the death penalty at the federal level, while Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is carrying the bill in the Senate.

It's not immediately clear whether Tsarnaev will actually face execution, given Biden's own stated opposition to the death penalty, Attorney General Merrick Garland's current moratorium on federal executions, and Pressley's contention that Biden has personally pledged to her that no federal executions would take place during his presidency.

"President Biden gave me his word that no one would be executed by the federal government under his watch, and I fully expect him to keep that promise," said Pressley.

Pressley also called on Congress to pass her bill to end the federal death penalty while reiterating prior requests that she and other members of Congress have made to the administration.

"I continue to call on President Biden to take executive action to halt federal executions, commute the sentences of those on death row, direct DOJ prosecutors to no longer seek the death penalty, and dismantle the death row facility at Terre Haute," she said, referring to a facility in Indiana that houses federal death row inmates.

Saudi crown prince says he does not care if Biden 

AMERICA misunderstands him - 

The Atlantic

"Simply, I do not care, the crown prince said, 

to think about the interests of America".

Thu, March 3, 2022,

By Maher Chmaytelli

DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said he does not care whether U.S. President Joe Biden misunderstood things about him, saying Biden should be focusing on America's interests, in an interview with The Atlantic monthly published on Thursday.

Since Biden took office in January 2021, the long-standing strategic partnership between Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, and Washington has come under strain over Riyadh's human rights record, especially with respect to the Yemen war and the 2018 murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Prince Mohammed, the de facto Saudi ruler widely known as MbS, suggested in separate but related remarks carried by the Saudi state news agency SPA that Riyadh could choose to reduce investments in the United States,

"Simply, I do not care,” the crown prince said when asked by The Atlantic whether Biden misunderstood things about him. He said it was up to Biden "to think about the interests of America".

“We don’t have the right to lecture you in America,” he added. “The same goes the other way.”

The Biden administration released a U.S. intelligence report implicating the crown prince in the murder of Khashoggi, which MbS denies, and pressed for the release of political prisoners.

The crown prince told The Atlantic that he felt his own rights had been violated by the accusations against him in the brutal murder and dismemberment of Khashoggi, who was killed inside the kingdom's Istanbul consulate.

"I feel that human rights law wasn’t applied to me...Article XI of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that any person is innocent until proven guilty,” he said.

Khashoggi's murder tarnished the reformist image that the crown prince had been cultivating in the West, which largely condemned him. MbS has wanted to return the focus to social and economic reforms that he has pushed through to open up Saudi Arabia and diversify its oil-dependent economy.

They do not appear to include wide political reform.

Asked whether Saudi rule could transform into a constitutional monarchy, MbS said no. “Saudi Arabia is based on pure monarchy,” he said.

Prince Mohammed also told The Atlantic that Riyadh's objective was to maintain and strengthen its "long, historical" relationship with America. He said Saudi investments in the United States amounted to $800 billion.

"In the same way we have the possibility of boosting our interests, we have the possibility of reducing them," SPA quoted him as saying.

While the crown prince enjoyed close relations with Biden's predecessor Donald Trump, Biden has taken a tougher stance with the Gulf Arab powerhouse and has so far chosen only to speak with King Salman bin Abdulaziz, not MbS.

The Biden administration has also prioritised an end to the Yemen war, where a Saudi-led coalition has been battling the Iran-aligned Houthi movement for seven years. The conflict has killed tens of thousands of people and pushed Yemen to the brink of famine.

(Reporting by Maher Chmaytelli; Writing by Ghaida Ghantous; Editing by Samia Nakhoul and Mark Heinrich)

New York Times Tech Workers Vote To Unionize

Dave Jamieson
Thu, March 3, 2022,

The Times had opposed its tech workers forming a union even though its journalists have been unionized for decades. (Photo: via Associated Press)

Software engineers and product designers at The New York Times have voted overwhelmingly to unionize, creating a large union of tech workers at the paper of record and extending labor’s winning streak in media.

A ballot count by the National Labor Relations Board on Thursday showed 404 workers supported forming a union while 88 opposed it. The tally still needs to be certified by the labor board to become official.

Members of the union campaign took to Twitter following the vote count and called it a “historic win,” saying they “stand in solidarity with all workers organizing to build better workplaces in the tech and media industries.”



The employees will be represented by the NewsGuild-CWA, the same union that includes reporters, editors and other journalists in The New York Times newsroom.

Even though the Times’ newsroom has been unionized for the better part of a century, the company resisted a union for workers on the tech side of the business. Management argued that a union would disrupt the company’s work and urged employees to vote “no,” calling it “an unproven experiment with permanent consequences,” according to the Guardian.

As a liberal newspaper, the Times drew criticism for refusing to voluntarily recognize the union after a majority of workers said they wanted to form one, instead opting to force an NLRB-supervised vote. The company sought to have the election stopped through the labor board, arguing that the proposed bargaining unit was not proper. The paper’s effort failed.

The Times’ resistance to the campaign underscored an age-old stance from tech employers: that a union is okay for certain workers, but not for those in tech.

The union eventually filed unfair labor practice charges against the company, accusing management of interfering with the organizing campaign and trying to silence workers who supported it. The company denied the allegations but officials at the labor board found merit in them.

Considering its long history as a unionized company, the Times’ resistance to the campaign underscored an age-old stance from tech employers: that a union might make sense for certain workers, but not for tech workers, who are somehow unique and shouldn’t bargain collectively.

Despite such attitudes, the tech industry has seen a number of high-profile organizing efforts in recent years, including the Alphabet Workers Union at Google in Silicon Valley.

The NewsGuild said the new unionized group at the Times, numbering around 600, appears to be the largest bargaining unit of tech workers in the country.

The election win on Thursday will add more members to a union that’s been growing its footprint inside the Times. Workers at the newspaper’s product review site, Wirecutter, unionized in 2019. They settled on a first contract with the company late last year after going on strike over Thanksgiving weekend.

New York Times Tech Workers Vote to Certify Union
March 3, 2022


Tech workers at The New York Times on Thursday voted in favor of certifying their union in a National Labor Relations Board election, making it one of the biggest tech unions in America.

The workers voted in favor, 404 to 88, easily reaching the needed majority of the ballots that were cast. A win means the union, the Times Tech Guild, can begin negotiations for a contract with management.

“We’re just elated and really soaking in what this means, not only for us as tech workers at The Times and for The New York Times but also for the tech industry as a whole,” said Nozlee Samadzadeh, a senior software engineer. “I think this is going to be the start of a wave of organizing in the tech industry.”

Ms. Samadzadeh said the union was eager to bargain a contract around issues “similar to what the newsroom unit has been fighting for — issues around pay, diversity and equity, a strong contract to make our workplace more fair.”

Danielle Rhoades Ha, a Times spokeswoman, said The Times looked forward to working with the union to establish a contract.

“We continue to believe this election process was critical so our colleagues could learn more about the union, hear both sides of the argument and, ultimately, make an informed decision,” she said.

The Times Tech Guild, which represents about 600 software engineers, product managers, designers, data analysts and other workers, asked The Times for voluntary recognition in April. The Times declined, so the matter went to a formal election through the labor board.

The labor board alleged in a complaint in January that The Times’s management had violated federal workplace law by preventing some employees from showing support for the union. A Times spokeswoman said at the time that the company disagreed with the allegations.

The Times Tech Guild is represented by the NewsGuild of New York, which also represents editorial workers at The New York Times and at Wirecutter, the company’s product-review website. In 2019, The Times voluntarily recognized the Wirecutter union.

Source: NY Times