MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the tag “European Council”

USA: Attorney General Jeff Sessions – “Memorandum for Federal Prosecutors along the Southwest Border – Subject: Zero-Tolerance for Offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 132(a)” (06.04.2018)

Advertisements

USA: Congressional Black Caucus letter to President Trump on the elimination of the Diversity Immigration Visa (DV) – (12.02.2018)

Opinion: USA needs to pull-out troops world-wide since they pulling out of UN Global Compact on Migration!

Now the that United States of America, the US Government officially pulled out of the United National Global Compact on Migration. This happens as the Phase 1 of negotiations are going on and the 24 elements was agreed upon in the New York Declaration. Which are elements that are vital for working of security, stability and human rights for the migrants, as stated as this: “improving cooperation in this regard between countries of origin and destination.” (Global Compact on Migration, 13.03.2017).

So now that the International Community at large are going into Phase II: “Phase 2, Stock-taking. After the consultations, there will be an intergovernmental stock-taking conference in Guadalajara, Mexico, in early December, where inputs from the consultations will be presented and discussed, then consolidated as the basis for a draft. The co-facilitators– the Swiss and Mexican governments– will produce a first draft of the Global Compact on Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration by February 2018 which will be the basis for the intergovernmental negotiations culminating in the compact (Phase 3). Negotiations should be concluded by the end of July ahead of the September conference” (Global Compact on Migration, 13.03.2017).

This meaning that the elements and pillars of rights for migration and co-operations between states will be set by the paradigm made by the consultations and previous declarations. Clearly, the United States don’t want to participate or even set agenda for positive change. They want to become a pariah state. The United States under President Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions are planning to become hated worldwide, to a level even President George W. Bush didn’t even achieve. By the way, that is impressive.

Why I dislike the pulling out of the United States in the UN Global Compact, is for the simple reason. They are involved in so many conflicts, they are trading so much arms and weapons worldwide. That the ones that are a warlord, are a supporter of conflicts and is initiating it too. Should take responsibility and actually make sure the refugees and the migrants from crisis are getting a new home. That should make sense for all. The US Army has troops in Somalia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Poland, Ukraine, Niger, Japan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Spain, South Sudan, Estonia, Norway, South Korea, Israel and Bahrain.

So the US Army and Navy are stationed everywhere and has bases all over the globe. They are even involved and has Guam, who has been in the spotlight in the fist-fight between North Korean President Kim Yung-Un and President Trump. What is also worrying and hard to know is the estimates of trade of arms and weapons to all parts of the world. This also small-arms, fighter-planes and equipment that used to keep both allies and undemocratic regimes in power. Either for internal conflicts or for loyalty to the US. Therefore, the creation of UN Compact is so important to put migration and refugees in center, as they are fleeing conflicts in their homes and nations to get to safety. That is why the world has to make sure they have provisions and plans to shelter these individuals. They deserve better, especially from the United States.

The world cannot trust the Trump Administration, neither their actions. They should stop dropping drone attacks world-wide. They should stop supporting the Saudi Arabia’s attacks in Yemen. Their bombings in Somalia. Their initial warfare in Afganistan, they shouldn’t be involved around the Lake Chad and Nigeria, Cameroon and Sahel Region. They are just creating more refugees and migrants. While they have no honor and no pride, to actually shelter them and make sure there is international laws to cover their hurt. We know that now, Nikki Haley and the US Government has decided so.

The bravery and the proud American state is failing. The next Banana Republic with huge debt and deficit. Cannot take of their own poor and now want to make sure they are not friendly with the international community and taking responsibility for their actions. We know that now, the US is irresponsible and irrational. The Trump Administration can screw themselves in the oval office in Washington. We cannot trust the Americans anymore, they are just thinking about themselves and not about the greater good. United States is a selfish state who don’t take responsibility and that should be sanctioned, like they sanctions others. Peace.

United States Ends Participation in Global Compact on Migration (02.12.2017)

Trump Administration planned from July 2017 to build a migrant tent-camp at Guantanamo, Cuba!

On the 7th July 2017 the United States Navy published a Modification Notice on the U.S. land on Cuba, the famous Guantanamo. Again, a new administration has plans to use this land and the parts of island to good use. Seemingly for other purposes than keeping non-trialed terrorist suspects. They are planning to immigrants and asylum seekers put on the Cuban. People who are fleeing camps and war-zones already to be transported to another facility under United States jurisdiction.

The Navy is planning this:

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast (NAVFAC SE) has been tasked to develop, solicit, and award a single-award, firm fixed-price (FFP), design-bid-build (DBB) contract for the construction of a contingency mass migration complex (Leeward South) for 13,000 migrants and 5,000 support forces, at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The estimated price range for the entire project is between $25,000,000.00 and $100,000,000.00” (…) “The scope of this project is for the construction of a contingency mass migration complex (Leeward South) for 13,000 migrants and 5,000 support forces. Provide site shaping for tents, concrete pads for camp headquarters, galleys and dumpsters, perimeter and service roads, and Mass Notification System. Supporting facilities include utility systems (electrical, water, and sanitary sewer), exterior lighting, information systems to include fiber optic cable service, expansion of the waste, vehicle parking area, storm drainage, and removal of two family housing trailer units. Measures in accordance with the Department of Defense (DoD) Minimum Antiterrorism for Buildings standards will be provided. Facilities will be designed to a minimum life of 50 years in accordance with DoDs Unified Facilities Code (UFC 1-200-02) including energy efficiencies, building envelope and integrated building systems performance. Sustainability/Energy measures will be provided” (NECO Synopsis Database – ‘Subject: Y–Contingency Mass Migration Complex, Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba’ – 07.07.2017).

So the Trump Administration together with the Navy, the other agencies really has a plan of moving immigrants and asylum-seekers to Guantanamo. To make sure their stay in the United States will be in tents, instead of trying to get them integrated into society. The ones who are worried about the public business into building of the camp and the price of installation.

That the United States can plan to move and create a temporary space for people in camps on the outside of their territory, to scare more from not coming and also making it worse for their moral obligations to facilitate for their refugees. Just like Americans has said it is problematic with the state of camps in Italy, Greece and Turkey. This one will not make it better, especially when it is a created affair and professional enterprises creating it. As the tenders and government procurement of the camp are clearly planned affairs on how the refugees will leave.

That the United States are planning a tent-camp not far from the U.S. state of Florida and on leased land on Cuba, is extremely bad and offensive. Especially, since many of the refugees are leaving from places that the Americans has attacked with military operations, where the United States has supported drones, where U.S. Soldiers has killed and created turmoil in the nations. Therefore, as moral obligations to where they sent troops and made a fuzz, they should accept that people are fleeing these wars and conflicts for a safe-haven in the Untied States.

Therefore, that the Navy and the United States government plans a tent-camp on territory of Guantanamo, Cuba for 13,000 migrants and 5,000 support personnel. This means they planning a small-town size of tents and needed necessities for them. Instead of taking care of them through more friendly neighborhood, they are now planning to drop them off in tents. Hope they get tired of the meager lifestyle to go home. Even if it means leaving peace and going back into war-zones and dictatorships.

The moral fall of the United States is clearly there. They could have used other means, used other types of facilitation for migrants. Instead of making provisions without creating a permanent tent-camp for them. Usually, they are put-up because the need for it.

Why I find it strange that UNHCR from 2007 says: “Family tents may be useful and appropriate, for example, when local materials are either not available at all or are only seasonally available or for refugees of nomadic background. The life-span of an erected canvas tent depends on the manufacturing, length of storage before deployment, as well as the climate and the care given by its occupants. Where tents are used for long durations, provisions for repair materials should be considered. Larger or communal tents may serve as transit accommodation while more appropriate shelter is constructed” (…) “In general, tents are difficult to heat as walls and roof do not provide sufficient insulation. Therefore, tents are not suitable as cold climate shelters, but if there is no choice, they can save lives and bridge the time until more suitable shelters are established” (UNHCR P: 221-222 – ‘ Handbook for Emergencies – Third Edition’ February 2007).

So, when the U.S. Government puts up a tents, that is not suitable for long-term solution. Because even the UNHCR says it is temporary, since the tents are not insulated. Therefore, Guantanamo tent-camp for the migrants coming to the US. Clearly, the US state will not build a proper place for the migrants, but the people fleeing should get proper shelter. Not be put in tents, but build more suitable shelters. Especially, when the US can build proper housing for the migrants. Since they are moving them from main-land US to the area controlled by US on Cuba. Peace.

USA: DHS Announces Implementation of Travel Restriction Provisions (29.06.2017)

Opinion: Theresa May lost so bad, that she has to beg for mercy from Belfast!

 

Today is a unique day, the General Election in the United Kingdom. That Theresa May herself ushered in and grinned while doing. She was confident because of the Conservative Party lead and support, that it would be walk-in-the-park to regain and strengthen her party before Brexit negotiations. Instead, she has fallen and bad. So bad she do not have majority in Parliament as she thought she was entitled to have. The public was not agreeing with her methods, neither was her campaign anything to run around the mill about and no one will say: “Well done lads”.

The winner is the opposition candidate and his party. That is Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and his campaign. A manifesto of progressive social welfare state ideas. That would support youth, health-care and build the state. He was moderate in tone, but progressive in stances and promises. It was something rare and neat. Corbyn deserves praise for his attitude amongst all the hatred, sceptics and pundits who expected him and his party to fall. The dominant problem was not the grass-root mobilization, but the Members of Parliament who has revolted against the man.

While Theresa May has been able to screw-up all on her own. Corbyn has built a party from scratch in some sense and used his connections in Unions to spark interest. To the amazement of the left, which May has sounded more and more alike. Part of me feels that she has more similar opinions of Nigel Farage, than of her old mate David Cameron and George Osborne. That is just me, I guess.

With this amazing defaulted campaign that has shattered the dreams of strong Conservative Party united to negotiate with European counterparts. Instead, she has belittle herself and has to ask for help. Not by just anyone, but the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). She needs help from the DUP and their support to gain majority. Before the election, the mandate of the Conservative was strong enough on their own.

Now the help come from the London friendly Northern Irish. Just think about the shit-storm it would have been, if the Labour Party went into alliance with Sinn Fein (SF) or Scottish National Party (SNP). It would have created havoc and the world would have hassled the leadership of Labour. The world clocks would have stopped and the Tube in London would have gotten massive delays. However, since it is the Conservative and their needs, we all should just be merry.

Well, the handout of loyalists to London in Northern Ireland is all fine, but at what cost is it for the May government. Since, an arrangement of these sorts has to leeway for the alliance partner and not just for the show. That she says she will deliver a government for the ‘National Interest’ is bit weird, as the whole election was about her ego and her drive for total control. Something the voters has taken away. She will not get full majority, Theresa May needs support… the Tories cannot run alone.

If the Tories and May government hadn’t run this snap and quick elections, she would still been able to have majority and also have more power in the Brexit negotiations. Now she is weak, the tea isn’t strong. Corbyn and Labour has surged, because the Tories run on weak manifesto and worse campaign. May might be good to write legislation and be a Parliamentarian, but as a campaign leader she was unstable. The public saw this and the strength she didn’t show the public, as she even abstained from open and national televised debates. That was distasteful and showed arrogance to the public.

That also Liberal-Democratic Party (Lib-Dems) gotten more seats in Parliament. That Tories and SNP lost seats, shows how their workings has gone against them. That the Tories will defend their minority government in honor of the willing party DUP. The DUP as of now will decide what they deserve for being the king-makers.

May has really lost, not only her strength, but her credibility. She has been all-out swinging, but not delivering. Shredded with her ego and therefore when Corbyn and his team been modest in their approach they have gotten more sympathy and while May created apathy. This is the reason why so many turned Labour and lost faith in her. While Corbyn have showed character. Theresa May haven’t showed this. The Tories are bleeding now, therefore they need the support of DUP to be able to create a new cabinet.

The ones who voted the Tories because they feared the ‘Coalition of Chaos’, she will now run her own if she get an agreement and gives way to DUP. That the DUP Arlene Foster will use her leverage to eat of the plate and create hardships for May. The cost will come to the forefront the coming days. Even if the Tories have the senior Cabinet Ministers and the Tories have the formal minority government alone. They will still need to kiss the ring of Foster. She is not even trusted in Northern Ireland, so it is interesting that a bleeding Prime Minister begs from someone who is not trustworthy in NI.

This here will be saga of chaos and chaotic affairs, this is not a stronger United Kingdom government before negotiations with Brussels. Because the Tories have to keep their own shop at bay and also their new partnership with the NI DUP. This will be a fragile company… and how it goes will escalate the coming days. What we do know is that the Tories lost, May lost and the Corbyn’s of the world had a massive victory. Peace.

Opinion: Theresa May is wrong, no need to suspend Human Rights Laws, there are provisions for the State to keep their citizens safe!

I’m clear: if human rights laws get in the way of tackling extremism and terrorism, we will change those laws to keep British people safe. After the London Bridge attack, I said “enough is enough”, and that things need to change to tackle the threat we face. And tonight I set out what that means: longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences; deporting foreign terror suspects back to their own countries; restricting the freedom and movements of terrorist suspects when we have evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough to prosecute them in court” – Theresa May (06.06.2017 – at a rally at Slough, United Kingdom).

That Prime Minister Theresa May are obliged to amend her laws and ask for provisions to change them through Parliament. She is fine to do so and follow the procedures of the state, to make the most draconian laws able. As the Tories already before the grand-elections started to unleash laws of old, that we’re in the fashion of King Henry IV. These laws was amend and gives more powers to the government over the Parliament. So the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom has already shown force and will of taking the powers in their hands.

Theresa May isn’t the first to use terrorism to control and to suspend laws to gain more power. That is usually a sign of oppressive behavior and of the Orwellian society. Clearly, a human being like May should consider her words. If not she really wants to show that she can act so much, that she wants to take away freedom and liberties from her own citizens. Instead of believing in the set freedoms and provisions done by the United Nations Charter and ratified legal framework that the United Kingdom must have.

Still, there are enough signs that she doesn’t need to do so, as the provisions that are in place has not and will not overpower a sovereign, neither will it create interference of state control in troubling time. That is if she really cares about the liberties and the just societies the United Nations legal framework put in place.

OHCHR own Fact Sheet on Human Rights and Terrorism:

International and regional human rights law makes clear that States have both a right and a duty to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from terrorist attacks. This stems from the general duty of States to protect individuals under their jurisdiction against interference in the enjoyment of human rights. More specifically, this duty is recognized as part of States’ obligations to ensure respect for the right to life and the right to security” OHCHR, P: 8, 2008).

These challenges are not insurmountable. States can effectively meet their obligations under international law by using the flexibilities built into the international human rights law framework. Human rights law allows for limitations on certain rights and, in a very limited set of exceptional circumstances, for derogations from certain human rights provisions. These two types of restrictions are specifically conceived to provide States with the necessary flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances, while at the same time—provided a number of conditions are fulfilled—complying with their obligations under international human rights law” (OHCHR, P: 23, 2008).

Than it is the United Nation Security Council own definition:

Security Council Resolution 1963 (2010) reiterates that effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort, and it notes the importance of respect for the rule of law so as to effectively combat terrorism. Resolution 1963 (2010) “thus encourages CTED to further develop its activities in this area, to ensure that all human rights issues relevant to the implementation of resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005) are addressed consistently and even-handedly including, as appropriate, on country visits that are organized with the consent of the visited member State”.

(UNSC, 2015)

It is really serious when the United Nations and the OHCHR are saying there no issues between respecting the Human Rights Law legal framework and countering terrorism. Even if the resolutions and legal framework are critical and makes the state more bound to respect the terrorists. This still, doesn’t stop them from having provisions and having strict security in the Member States. The Member State themselves are putting forward rule of law and also has to incriminate inside their territory. However, the security is for the reason of the liberty and freedom of all citizens and all rights to all human beings. It is strange that Prime Minister Theresa May wants to suspend it, while the UNSC and OHCHR are saying it is possible.

That she has to go this far to gain support. Seems more like she could join Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttal, than following the Conservative leadership of the past. These words would not have come from David Cameron or anyone of his kind. This shows how fragile and how hell-bent is on winning this election by any means. That she has to promise on the final leap to suspend rule of law and take away basic human rigths. As the Police Service and Security Organization in our time cannot be able fight terrorism by the means and the values, that most of Europe see as natural. That the Police and Army get stronger laws and more draconian ones to make sure the United Kingdom can oppress and silence freedoms. Instead of fighting it through the means of strengthening the Police and the Intelligence, as the UK has one of the most sophisticated Security Organization in the world. It should have the capacity and if the Conservative had been serious about it, they would have fixed the issue during the last 8 years. Peace.

Reference:

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) – ‘Human Rights, Terrorism and Counter-terrorism – Fact Sheet No. 32’ (July 2008)

link: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf

United Nation Security Council – ‘PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS WHILE COUNTERING TERRORISM’ (10.09.2015) link: http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/rights.html

Opinion: PM May’s Plymouth Herald Interview graced with blissful ignorance towards the marginal constituency!

If I was to really get at the burr in my saddle, it’s not politics — and this is, I think, probably a horrible analogy — but I look at politicians as, they are doing what inherently they need to do to retain power. Their job is to consolidate power. When you go to the zoo and you see a monkey throwing poop, you go, ‘That’s what monkeys do, what are you gonna do?’ But what I wish the media would do more frequently is say, ‘Bad monkey’.”Jon Stewart

This week’s interview with the Plymouth Herald as she was campaigning in the South West of England. As the General Election of the United Kingdom runs closer. I feel it is important to show grace and tact to the local constituencies. Plymouth is a marginal seat and with the dwindling polls of the Conservative and less of a percentage between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party.

Therefore the coalition of chaos is getting closer, than the strengthening the Tories for the Brexit negotiations. Instead of showing class and policy as the Tories could have had a better campaign, as their manifesto was a sensation of tax-breaks for the rich and cuts on welfare. In the margin’s of error is that the Labour Party has a social-caring manifesto and where they are putting forward meaningful policies. Even if Jeremy Corbyn are seen as Marxist, but he is more consistent, than what the Prime Minister Theresa May. We can see how she lacks campaigning and being honest with the pledges. Prime Minster May are again nonsensical in her interview.

In Plymouth, Theresa May botched an interview, it is horrific how little she answered and how little she answered. As the Plymouth problems didn’t matter or if she even had been briefed about the situation. This is as if she didn’t want to mind it and thought it would be easy to answer the local press. Because with just looking into two of the four questions asked by the Plymouth Herald to Prime Minister May, she didn’t really answer with anything. It is not like the Conservative Party head honcho had any answers or thought true the implications of Brexit to the constituency of Plymouth. Take a look!

Q: “Prime Minister, welcome to Plymouth. We’re in one of the most marginal seats in the country here. Are you getting nervous, and do you see Plymouth as a ‘must win’ next week?” (…) A: “No, I’m very clear that this is a crucial election for this country” (…) “We stand at an important moment, we need to make sure we get the Brexit negotiations right, but also have a plan to take this country forward, to build a stronger, more prosperous future for Plymouth, for families here and across the whole of the United Kingdom” (…) “So I’m going out and about around the whole country, talking to people with that very clear message that they face a choice on June 8.” (Blackledge, 2017).

Q: “A lot of people in Plymouth voted for Brexit because they saw a better future ahead. How will your Brexit plan make Plymouth people better off?” (…) A: “I think there is a better future ahead for Plymouth and for the whole of the UK” (…) “There are opportunities when we leave the European Union. But we need to have the right government in place, the right plan to grasp those opportunities” (…) “We need to get Brexit right, just 11 days after the GE we will start those Brexit negotiations. I’m the Prime Minister, I’m the party leader with the plan for those negotiations” (…) “But it’s about more than this. it’s about building that prosperous future for families in Plymouth and around the whole of the country” (…) “I’m confident we can do that, I’ve got a plan for a stronger Britain, I’m confident we can build that stronger economy with better opportunities for young people, better opportunities for families, and I’m optimistic about that because I believe in Britain and I believe in the British people.” (Blackledge, 2017).

This here is a proof of the lacking policies and guidelines for the future with the Tories. If you believe the Brexiteers and the Tories after this one, than your blind. The blindness will be eating you and you would be walking in total uncertainty. Since PM May isn’t answer the questions. She is just bringing a word-salad instead of actually coming with wisdom of how she will deliver the promises. Like Plymouth doesn’t get any consideration or concern.

The constituency of Plymouth and the problems there are not worth her time. Instead more important to say the whole United Kingdom will be prosperous without the European Union. Even if there isn’t anything in the near future proving that the Brexit will be positive. If it will be so, it isn’t because the Tories have been prepared or had a well-figured out polices to become independent from the European Union. The Tories here is on the limb. Tories isn’t proving that they care about Plymouth and doubt that is the only constituency that May has no current plan to help. Peace.

Reference:

Blackledge, Sam – ‘The four key questions put to Theresa May that Plymouth wanted answered’ (31.05.2017) link: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/here-is-what-the-prime-minister-had-to-say-to-the-herald-this-morning/story-30363776-detail/story.html#QxRrRf1Fj11MiaRm.99

The Church of England: The General Election, June 8th 2017 (06.05.2017)

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: