Hong Kong police make hundreds of arrests under controversial new security law

Officers have arrested 370 protesters in Hong Kong, ten of whom were held for violating China's new security law. They also fired water cannons and pepper spray at demonstrators.


Hong Kong police made the first arrests under the controversial new national security law, and fired water cannons and pepper spray at protesters on Wednesday — the first full day the sweeping measures went into effect.

Police said that they arrested 370 people for unlawful assembly, violating the security law, obstructing police and possessing weapons. Authorities said ten people were arrested specifically for violating the new law.

One metro station was also closed, as thousands gathered downtown for the demonstration to mark the 23rd anniversary of the former British colony's handover to China.

Read more: Germany's Heiko Maas: Hong Kong security law 'extremely worrying'

Police, who earlier banned the protest, cited the new law when confronting protesters who had gathered at Causeway Bay, a popular shopping district and the site of several protests prior to Wednesday's demonstration.

"You are displaying flags or banners/chanting slogans/or conducting yourselves with intent such as secession or subversion, which may constitute offenses under the national security law," read an official message displayed on a purple banner.

The first person to be arrested under the new law was holding a flag that said "Hong Kong Independence," a violation of the security law, according to a police statement on Twitter.

Police also reported that they began arresting demonstrators after issuing multiple warnings.

Later on, a woman was arrested for carrying a sign with a similar message that displayed the British flag. "#HKpolice will take resolute enforcement action in accordance with #NSL," police tweeted.

Police also said that an officer had been stabbed in the arm by protesters, and posted a photo of a person with a wounded arm. "While the bystanders offered no helping hand, suspects fled," the department wrote.

A ban on calls for independence

Under the law, which took effect on Tuesday at 11pm local time (3pm GMT), any person taking part in secessionist activities such as shouting slogans or holding up banners and flags calling for the city's independence is in violation of the law, regardless of whether violence was used.

The law can target some of the actions seen at anti-government protests last year, including attacks on government offices and police stations, damage to subway stations, and the shutdown of the city's international airport. Acts of vandalism against government facilities or public transit can also be prosecuted as subversion or terrorism. The new security law will not, however, be applied retroactively, a senior Chinese official said Wednesday.

Read more: Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong steps down from pro-democracy group

Also on Wednesday, a Chinese government official said that those suspected of violating the law could be investigated in the mainland. Beijing's new office in Hong Kong abides by Chinese law, and Hong Kong's legal system cannot be expected to implement the laws of the mainland, said Zhang Xiaoming, Executive Deputy Director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office.

"This law is a birthday gift to [Hong Kong] and will show its precious value in the future," said Zhang.

lc/stb (Reuters, AP, AFP)

DW RECOMMENDS


China's Hong Kong security law sparks global outcry

EU Council President Charles Michel has said the law risks "undermining the rule of law" and that the council "deplores" the decision. Meanwhile, the US has withdrawn preferential economic treatment for the territory. (30.06.2020)


Date 01.07.2020
Related Subjects People's Republic of China, Hong Kong
Keywords Hong Kong, security law, China, Beijing, protests
Send us your feedback.
Print Print this page
Permalink

https://p.dw.com/p/3ebzL

Trump brings back fireworks to Mount Rushmore; faces criticism

Fireworks detonate above the Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota on July 3, 2008. For the first time since then, the national memorial will host a fireworks display to mark the Fourth of July. File Photo by Mark I. Lane/U.S. Air Force | License Photo
July 1 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump is planning a triumphant return of Fourth of July fireworks at Mount Rushmore this weekend, but some activists and experts from South Dakota say they're not welcoming his visit.

Friday's event will mark the first time there's been a fireworks event at the national memorial since 2009. It was called off after that because of a mountain pine beetle infestation in the area, which left dead ponderosa pine trees susceptible to fire.

Trump is scheduled to attend, arriving in the state around 6:45 p.m. He, along with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, plan to speak at the event, which will broadcast live on television and the Internet.

Fireworks are expected to begin around 9:30 p.m. Only those with tickets will be allowed to attend the event in person.

RELATED DHS forms task force to protect monuments over July 4th weekend

Some critics have expressed concern about the potential for coronavirus to spread among the attendees.

Oglala Sioux President Julian Bear Runner told The Guardian he's worried about the influx of people to the area for the event.

"Trump coming here is a safety concern not just for my people inside and outside the reservation, but for people in the Great Plains. We have such limited resources in Black Hills, and we're already seeing infections rising," he said.

He said members of his and other Native American groups plan to protest Trump's visit to the controversial monument, which features the carved heads of Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. Tribal leaders say the creation of the monument was a violation of existing treaties between the U.S. government and tribes that live in the Black Hills.

"The lands on which that mountain is carved and the lands he's about to visit belong to the Great Sioux nation under a treaty signed in 1851 and the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 and I have to tell him he doesn't have permission from its original sovereign owners to enter the territory at this time," Bear Runner said.

"It's going to cause an uproar if he comes here. People are going to want to exercise their First Amendment rights to protest and we do not want to see anyone get hurt or the lands be destroyed."

RELATED PBS' 'A Capitol Fourth' to return with pre-taped performances

Noem said 7,500 people attending won't be required to wear face coverings to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

"We will have a large event on July 3. We told those folks that have concerns that they can stay home, but those who want to come and join us, we'll be giving out free face masks, if they choose to wear one," she said during a Fox News appearance Monday.

"But we will not be social distancing."
South Dakota has 6,826 confirmed cases of the virus with 93 deaths as of Wednesday afternoon. The state reported 48 new cases Tuesday, with a new daily case trajectory trending downward after a 249-case high May 9, according to The New York Times' tracker.

Beyond the potential health risk, though, some are concerned the fireworks show could pose a threat to the surrounding natural environment. Cheryl Schreier, who was superintendent of the national memorial from 2010 to 2019, wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post, saying fireworks pose a danger to public safety, and natural and cultural resources.

She said that should there be a wildfire sparked by the fireworks or any other emergency during the event, it could be difficult to get adequate emergency services to the site in a timely manner.

"Thanks to an extremely dry summer, South Dakota faces a higher than usual risk of wildfires," Schreier wrote.

"While cities and communities across the United States are canceling their Fourth of July celebrations to adhere to social distancing guidelines and protect their citizens, Trump and Noem are actively encouraging people to gather together, all in service of an event which poses clear risks to both visitors and the environment.

"I urge them to reconsider this event for the health and safety of us all."

Meanwhile, back in Washington, D.C., the National Park Service and Interior Department planned an Air Force Thunderbirds and Navy Blue Angels flyover at the National Mall on Saturday.

Trump plans to make a speech on the South Lawn of the White House which will be aired on TV and the Internet. The capital's fireworks display is expected to begin around 9 p.m. and will be visible from both Washington, D.C., and northern Virginia.

upi.com/7018564

United States-Mexico-Canada agreement takes effect amid lingering issues, pandemic


The United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, signed into law by President Donald Trump went into effect on Wednesday, amid lingering issues and the COVID-19 pandemic. Photo by Oliver Contreras/UPI | License Phot

July 1 (UPI) -- The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement went into effect on Wednesday rewriting the terms of trade between the three countries.

President Donald Trump signed the agreement in January to replace the maligned North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 with the White House declaring that the deal will result in "stronger economic growth, more jobs for American workers and fairer trade for our country."

The USMCA mostly preserves duty-free trade and economic integration provided by NAFTA while adding new rules surrounding digital trade and altering what products can be traded across borders without facing tariffs.

"I'm sure glad it was renegotiated," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said. "I'm not sure that I agree with the president that it was the worst agreement ever, but it needed to be renegotiated and part of it's because things like digital economy was never an issue 30 years ago."

RELATED Shell expects $22B second-quarter hit due to depressed oil prices

Even as the deal goes into effect, however, issues such as U.S. tariffs on metals and Mexican labor standards persist.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed concern during a June 18 hearing before Congress about a surge of aluminum imports from Canada, leading to speculation that the United States may reinstitute 10 percent tariffs on aluminum it removed while negotiating the USMCA.

The Aluminum Association sent a letter signed by 15 CEOs and executives in the industry calling on Lighthizer and the administration not to reverse its decision on the tariffs.

"After all of the hard work that has gone into making the USMCA a reality, it would be a shame to move backward by reapplying tariffs or quotas on aluminum," said Aluminum Association President Tom Dobbins.

Further, changes to Mexico's labor rules to ensure workers were granted the freedom to form unions and negotiate better wages were included in the deal but have yet to clear their way through the Mexican legal system.

"What people have to understand is the changes required by USMCA, if it's to be real, are changing root and branch deeply entrenched systems of protection contracts ad phony unions," Rep. Andy Levin, D-Mich., said.

RELATED Florida growers back bill to forbid Chinese citrus imports

The COVID-19 pandemic has also put a strain on the launch of the new deal as border closures to prevent the spread of the virus have slowed down trade.

Lighthizer pushed to have the deal take effect on Wednesday despite the pandemic to allow for the new rules to be enforced.

upi.com/7018591

63% of Americans locked down early in COVID-19 outbreak, reducing disease spread


Americans reduced movement by up to 63 percent to prevent the spread of COVID-19, a new study has found. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/UPI | License Photo

July 1 (UPI) -- Americans staying home -- even before local officials imposed social distancing restrictions -- likely stemmed the spread of COVID-19 in many parts of the country, according to an analysis published Wednesday by the Lancet Infectious Diseases.

TRACKING TRACING BY ANY OTHER NAME

In the 25 counties most affected by the outbreak by mid-April, movement by individuals dropped by up to 63 percent following the first three months of the outbreak, based on mobile phone data, according to the researchers.
These counties began to see declines in cases of COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, nine to 12 days after the declines in movement began. This, researchers said, reflects the five- to 14-day period between infection and symptoms appearing.

"Our results strongly support the conclusion that social distancing played a crucial role in the reduction of case growth rates in multiple U.S. counties during March and April, and is therefore an effective mitigation policy for COVID-19," study co-author Lauren M. Gardner said in a press release.

RELATED 2 in 3 parents would send kids to school in the fall, survey finds

"Critically, we also found that behavioral changes were already underway in many U.S. counties days to weeks before state-level or local-level stay-at-home policies were implemented," said Gardner, an associate professor of engineering at Johns Hopkins University.

Within the first four months of COVID-19 being reported in the United States, the virus spread to every state and more than 90 percent of counties, according to Gardner and her colleagues.

In general, policy response was highly "decentralized" during this period, researchers said. This means instructions on county and state-level stay-at-home policies were implemented in varying ways and levels, making the effectiveness of social distancing difficult to assess, they said.

RELATED Most with coronavirus unsure how they caught it, CDC says

TRACKING TRACING BY ANY OTHER NAME

For the study, researchers used real-world mobile phone movement data as an indicator of social distancing. This was used to compare local case growth with how individuals actually modified their movement patterns, rather than "relying on assumed compliance with local stay-at-home policies," they said.

Daily mobility data from Jan. 1 through April 20 was taken from mobile network records to capture trends in movement patterns for each U.S. county, and compared to baseline patterns pre-COVID-19 to generate a social distancing baseline, the researchers said.

Individuals began reducing their movement in all 25 of the most-affected counties six to 29 days before state-level stay-at-home policies were implemented, the researchers said.

RELATED COVID-19 outbreak will 'get worse before it gets better,' experts say

Between January 24 and April 17, compared to normal levels, individual mobility dropped by a range of 35 percent in New York City -- the lowest figure in the study -- to 63 percent in Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston -- the highest figure in the study.

In general, individuals modifying their behavior helped slow the spread of the virus more quickly than if they had waited until the implementation of stay-at-home policies, the researchers said.

"If individual-level actions were not taken and social distancing behavior was delayed until the state-level directives were implemented, COVID-19 would have been able to circulate unmitigated for additional weeks in some locations, inevitably resulting in more infections and deaths," Gardner said. "This demonstrates that it is within the power of each U.S. resident to help slow the spread of COVID-19."

upi.com/7018563

HOW RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS, TRUMP'S BASE, VIEW BLM...
AS THE MOB

A HISTORICAL PEJORATIVE USED BY EVERY RULING CLASS 
SINCE THE ROMAN SENATE



Are the protests in Israel and the United States related?  Caroline Glick claims that there is actually a lot more here that is well orchestrated and planned than we may think.  The timing especially always seems to be around 6 months before a major election in order to make an impact on the minds of voters.  Caroline even takes it up a level and notes that many of the major media companies are even all seemingly reading from similar scripts.  She notes that former senior Obama administration officials all seem to have the same talking points – this is no mere coincidence.  Moreover, many of the rioters – not the protesters – seem to be paid – again, not spontaneous.  Not only are the looters being given an incentive, but they are being choreographed to work together all across the United States.  The line needs to be made clear.  Protests are perfectly fine and even wonderful.  Rioting, looting, and destroying doors is horrible, illegal, and poses an existential threat.  This simply cannot go on.  

IN THIS CASE SELECTIVE EDITING OF SOCIAL MEDIA REPORTS AND VIDEOS HAS LED TO REPEATED SHOWINGS OF A FEW INCIDENTS OF SO CALLED RIOTING THAT IS THE TAKING DOWN OF WHITE RACIST STATUES IN THE USA THIS IS THEN USED TO CLAIM THAT PEACEFUL MASS PROTESTS ARE BAD ACTORS PAID BY THE DEEP STATE, SERIOUSLY MORE  ALEX JONES LIKE CONSPIRACY THEORIES
AND WHAT THE HELL HAS THIS ALL GOT TO DO WITH DESTROYING DOORS? 
OLD TESTAMENT, THE MARKING OF THE DOOR, IN HEBREW THE TESTAMENT OR TORAH IS KEPT AT THE DOORWAY TO KEEP THE ENEMY OUT. HENCE THE SIGILS OR MARKINGS ON DOORS OF RELIGIOUS JEWISH HOMES

THE POLITICS OF MISOGYNY 

President Trump is ‘near-sadistic’ in phone calls with women leaders: report

July 1, 2020 Roger Sollenberger, Salon


President Donald Trump’s phone calls with foreign leaders sounded like his combative, meandering coronavirus press briefings — free of facts but packed with conspiracy theories, fantasies and gut hunches derived from social media rumors and the perspectives of Fox News personalities, according to a new report from CNN’s Carl Bernstein.

In tones reminiscent of his contentious coronavirus conference calls with U.S. governors, Trump regularly boasted vaingloriously and flattered strongman adversaries while at the same time bullying top allies, most specifically women whom Trump often insulted directly in calls that officials described as “near-sadistic,” Bernstein reported.

Bernstein, who drew from four continuous months of interviews with a number of former top White House and intelligence officials, reported that top Cabinet advisers thought Trump’s calls were “delusional” and posed a threat to national security.

The president routinely bullied two female heads of state — former U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May and Angela Merkel — the German chancellor with a PhD in quantum chemistry whom Trump called “stupid.”

“Some of the things he said to Angela Merkel are just unbelievable: He called her ‘stupid’ and accused her of being in the pocket of the Russians . . . He’s toughest [in the phone calls] with those he looks at as weaklings and weakest with the ones he ought to be tough with,” one U.S. official told Bernstein.

A German official confirmed that Trump was “very aggressive” with Merkel, adding that the calls were “so unusual” that the Germans took extra precautions to ensure they did not leak, including reducing the circle of officials involved with the conversations.

“It’s just a small circle of people who are involved and the reason — the main reason — is that [the calls] are indeed problematic,” the official said.

Merkel, however, took Trump’s bloviations in stride — “like water off a duck’s back” — pushing back with calm observations of fact. The German official said that Trump displayed “very questionable behavior” when she visited the White House in 2018, which “was quite aggressive . . . [T]he Chancellor indeed stayed calm, and that’s what she does on the phone.”

Prime Minister May, in contrast, is said to have grown “flustered and nervous.”

“He clearly intimidated her — and meant to,” one source told Bernstein.

Trump’s calls with May were “humiliating and bullying,” Bernstein reports, with the president dismissing her as “a fool” and a coward regarding her actions surrounding Brexit, immigration and NATO.

“He’d get agitated about something with Theresa May, then he’d get nasty with her on the phone call,” one source said. “It’s the same interaction in every setting — coronavirus or Brexit — with just no filter applied.”

Trump also dismissed expert insight in favor of unenlightened flattery.

In an early call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the president invited his son-in-law Jared Kushner and daughter Ivanka into the room to listen, where they joined former national security adviser H.R. McMaster, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former senior national security adviser Fiona Hill and a State Department aide.

“The call was all over the place,” an official who read a detailed summary said, recalling that Putin spoke at length about policy, to which Trump responded in “short autobiographical bursts of bragging, self-congratulation and flattery.”

After the call, Kushner and Ivanka were “immediately effusive” with praise. Hill, who wrote an acclaimed biography of the Russian leader, tried to explain to the president what she had picked up from the conversation — offering insight into Putin’s thought process, his “smooth-talking” and what he wanted to get out of the call.

Trump, however, is said to have cut her off, returning to Jared and Ivanka for more acclaim.

The president often encouraged Jared and Ivanka to weigh in even on subjects where they had no experience, Bernstein reported. Trump himself almost never read the briefings which intelligence officials prepared in advance of the calls.

Ultimately, the Russians learned that “nobody has the authority to do anything,” which Putin has exploited to his advantage.

The president’s performances in calls with Putin, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman were particularly cringeworthy, officials said, noting that the leaders could take advantage of Trump in various ways, in large part because conversations with heads of state are typically recorded by intelligence services.

CNN reported last fall that two calls in particular raised such concern that the small circle of U.S. officials who were involved restricted access to the records. In one instance — a call with MBS in the wake of the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi — they locked down a transcript before it was circulated.

An official familiar with almost all of Trump’s calls with Turkey, Russia, Canada, Australia and European allies described them to Bernstein as “abominations.”

“There was no sense of ‘Team America’ in the conversations,” the official said. “The opposite. It was like the United States had disappeared. It was always ‘Just me.'”

Appellate Judge says Mary Trump’s tell-all book can be released

Published on July 2, 2020 By Sarah K. Burris


Yesterday, a judge paused Mary Trump’s tell-all book on President Donald Trump and his family, but Wednesday evening, a New York appellate judge ruled that Simon & Schuster could move forward with releasing the book.

According to the New York Times, Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man will be released in four weeks, on schedule.

“Justice Alan Scheinkman’s ruling, however, put off addressing a central aspect of the bitter spat about the manuscript that has been roiling all month in the Trump family: whether, by writing the book, Ms. Trump violated a confidentiality agreement put in place nearly 20 years ago after a struggle over the will of her grandfather, Fred Trump Sr., Donald Trump’s father,” the report said.

The book is already No. 1 on Amazon, dethroning John Bolton, who originally held the top spot.

Read the full report at the New York Times.

PAY WALL FIVE FREE STORIES AT NYT 

HEEEEEEEEE'S BAAAAACK

Rudy Giuliani returns to White House, denounces ‘deep state,’ calls BLM ‘Marxist’ just days after Trump fired SDNY chief

July 1, 2020 By David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement


It’s been less than two weeks since President Donald Trump fired the U.S. Attorney heading the once-independent Southern District of New York (SDNY) Office. Geoffrey Berman was conducting a criminal investigation of the President’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and his actions regarding Ukraine. Berman had already indicted two of the former New York City mayor’s associates.

And it’s been months since Giuliani has been seen at the White House – though just 12 days since Attorney General Bill Barr first announced Berman was “stepping down,” and just ten days since Trump fired him, forcing his resignation.

Giuliani, himself once the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, was very talkative when he spoke with reporters from the White House lawn, in front of a building in which he does not work and has no authority for. In fact, Giuliani has not been elected to any public office in over two decades, since 1997.

It is unknown why he was there.

He did, however, manage to put on a show.

The 76-year old former mayor called the Black Lives Matter movement a “Marxist organization,” and claimed it “has been planning to destroy the police for three years.”

There is no evidence of that.

“They’ve finally gotten stupid Democrat mayors to agree with them,” he added.

Rudy Giuliani: “Black Lives Matter is a Marxist organization — Black Lives Matter has been planning to destroy the police for 3 years & they finally got stupid Democrat Mayors to agree with them.” pic.twitter.com/TAW7qO5eLc
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 1, 2020


“Right now murder is up 58 percent under the regressive Democrat mayor who is typical of Democrat mayors all over the country,” Giuliani claimed. (NCRM has not verified that claim.)

“They are a disaster. They are a danger to their people,” the former NYC mayor told reporters. What he neglected to say is NYC murders have dropped dramatically since he was mayor, but are not as bad as they were when he was mayor.

He also slammed the person, currently unknown, who leaked information to The New York Times on which the paper based its story that Russia is paying the Taliban to murder U.S. soldiers. Counting on his fingers he called the leaker “some kind of a felon in the federal government,” and a “deep state criminal.”

Giuliani claimed the information that was leaked was “actionable intelligence,” despite the Trump administration claiming the president was not briefed on it because it was not. Also, it’s unclear how or why Giuliani, who is not a federal government employee, would know anything about the intelligence – which the Trump White House says is a “hoax” and does not exist.

“I can’t think of a worse crime,” Giuliani, the personal attorney for President Trump actually claimed. “It’s not treason, but it comes close.”

In the driveway of the White House, Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani calls the person who leaked the Russian bounty story to the NY Times a “felon” and a “deep state criminal.” pic.twitter.com/ncWgimiok8
— The American Independent (@AmerIndependent) July 1, 2020

75 years ago: When atomic scientist Leo Szilard tried to halt dropping bombs over Japan

Published on July 2, 2020 By Greg Mitchell

As this troubled summer rolls along, and the world begins to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the creation, and use, of the first atomic bombs, many special, or especially tragic, days will draw special attention. They will include July 16 (first test of the weapon in New Mexico), August 6 (bomb dropped over Hiroshima) and August 9 (over Nagasaki). Surely far fewer in the media and elsewhere will mark another key date: July 3.

On July 3, 1945, the great atomic scientist Leo Szilard finished a letter/petition that would become the strongest (virtually the only) real attempt at halting President Truman’s march to using the atomic bomb–still almost two weeks from its first test at Trinity–against Japanese cities.

We rarely hear that as the Truman White House made plans to use the first atomic bombs against Japan in the summer of 1945, a large group of atomic scientists, many of whom had worked on the bomb project, raised their voices, or at least their names, in protest. They were led by the great physicist Szilard who, among things, is the man who convinced Albert Einstein to write his famous yes-it-can-be-done letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, setting the bomb project in motion.

On July 3, he finished a petition to the new president for his fellow scientists to consider. It called atomic bombs “a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities ” and asked the president “to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs.” Dozens of his fellow Manhattan Project scientists signed.

The following day he wrote this cover letter (see below). The same day, Leslie Groves, military chief and overall director of the Manhattan Project, began a campaign to combat Szilard–including strong FBI surveillance–and remove him from the bomb project. Groves also made sure the petition never landed on Truman’s desk. No action was ever taken on it, in any event.

The bomb would be dropped over Hiroshima on August 6, with almost no one close to Truman or in a high military position calling for him to delay or reconsider (General Dwight D. Eisenhower a prime exception). For taking part in creating the bomb, and then failing to halt its use against people, Szilard would later proclaim that he might deserve the label, “war criminal.”

I have become rather fond of the mouthy, principled, Szilard as he came play a key role in my new book, The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. It’s the story of how Truman and Groves sabotaged the first movie on the atomic bomb, from MGM, in 1946, transforming it from a warning against building more and bigger bomb into pro-bomb propaganda. The film-makers managed to secure Szilard’s permission to be portrayed in the movie–but failed to mention his petition or opposition to the Truman’s use of the bomb.

Indeed, MGM was forced to make numerous key revisions under pressure from Truman and Groves, who had script approval, to endorse using the weapon against Japanese cities.

Here’s the letter to his colleagues:

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxx,

Enclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is based on purely moral considerations.

It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency, many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of atomic bombs against Japan.

Such arguments could be considered only within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of expediency in a short petition.

However small the chance might be that our petition may influence the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of the war.

Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of controlling the work on “atomic power”.

The fact that the people of the people of the United States are unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in this matter since those who have worked on “atomic power” represent a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form an opinion and declare their stand.

Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could give every member of your group an opportunity for signing.

Leo Szilard

Greg Mitchell is the author of a dozen books, the latest The Beginning or the End: How Hollywood–and America–Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (The New Press).

US-born woman in Canada yells at Canadian girls to ‘go back’ where they came from

 July 1, 2020 By Sky Palma

A confrontation in a Vancouver park was caught on video and has been circulating the internet, showing an elderly lady confront two woman for picking berries off trees.

Speaking to the Daily Hive, Elika Gholizadeh says the woman approached her and her friend and confronted them for having removed branches from trees, adding that she and her friend “genuinely were not aware that there was a bylaw in place against picking at the small branches and we would have understood the woman’s concern for the environment, had she not approached us in such a condescending and rude manner.”

As the confrontation continues, Gholizadeh took out her phone and began recording.

At one point, the woman tells the pair to “go back where you came from,” to which the pair responds by calling the woman a “colonizer.”

Pointing out that they were both born and raised in British Columbia, the pair then ask the woman where she’s from, to which the woman replies that she was originally born in the U.S.

Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart stated on social media that he “can’t believe” the woman “used the ‘go back to where you came from’ line,” adding that “she conveyed her message incredibly badly, and when her buttons were pushed she included an extremely offensive comment.”

Watch the video below:

Copy