
USA: Letter from Senator Wyden from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to DNI Daniel Coates on possible for state to collect communications (15.06.2017)










“COTTON: Do you like spy fiction: John le Carre, Daniel Silva, Jason Matthews?
SESSIONS: Yeah, Alan Furst, David Ignatius’ books.
COTTON: Do you like Jason Bourne or James Bond movies?
SESSIONS: No, yes, I do” (Politico, 2017).
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III or Jeff Sessions, who is the Alabama politician and a vital part of the Campaign of President Donald Trump had his hearing with the Senates Intelligence Committee and the continued Russian probe, as to get the facts of the possible collusion between the Trump Campaign and the Russian external force. This has been the giant obstacle and the sore thumb on the American Democracy since November 2016. Since Trump won and got elected, but while the released documentations and hacking of the opponents of Trump, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton. Therefore, yesterdays hearing was the second one, as the Republican politician and others had positive gains by the release of internal mails. These are well-known by the ones who followed the election.
This hearing is the second one of bigger characters, as the first one was former FBI director James Comey, who addressed his role and his position on the matter. As he was sacked and had his story for how the times has been after the election and during. Therefore, yesterdays hearing could show the public more insights into the Russian Probe. Still, yesterday didn’t give much insights, as Attorney General Sessions tried to say as little as possible and deflect as much as he could. Nevertheless, take the first point that I don’t believe have been given powers too. Since the President and this regard Donald Trump have the knowledge of memo’s and Executive Orders back to the 1980s. He wouldn’t even remember pre-Cleveland basketball team without LeBron James. So first let me introduce the President Ronald Reagan and his Executive memo.
President Ronald Reagan signed a memorandum into law for the trust between state officials and the White House. To certainly make sure the conversations and the discussions would be between the Executive who has the Executive Privilege and can avoid to disclose the information, even if the President is asked. Therefore, this piece of information is important:
“2. If the head of an executive department or agency (“Department Head”) believes, after consultation with department counsel, that compliance with a Congressional request for information raises a substantial question of executive privilege, he shall promptly notify and consult with the Attorney General through the Assistant Attorney General from the Office of Legal Counsel, and shall also promptly notify and consult with the Counsel to the President. If the information requested of a department or agency derives in whole or in part from information received from another department or agency, the latter entity shall also be consulted as to whether disclosure of the information raises a substantial question of executive privilege” (Reagan, 1982).
“3. Every effort shall be made to comply with the Congressional request in manner consistent with legitimate needs of the Executive Branch. The Department Head, the Attorney General and the Counsel to the President may, in exercise of their discretion in the circumstances, determine that the executive privilege shall not be invoked and release the requested information” (Reagan, 1982).
I doubt that President Trump ever would do this unless Stephen Bannon or someone else of his faulty White House could make him consider this possibility, especially if they kiss the ring and say they will be loyal to the man. Nevertheless, Attorney General Sessions believes that is done. Just take a look!
“WARNER: To your knowledge, have any Department of Justice officials been involved with conversations about any possibility of presidential pardons about any of the individuals involved with the Russia investigation?
SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, I’m not able to comment on conversations with high officials within the white house. That would be a violation of the communications rule that I have to —
WARNER: Just so I can understand, is the basis of that unwilling to answer based on executive privilege?
SESSIONS: It’s a long standing policy. The department of justice not to comment on conversations that the attorney general had with the president of the united States for confidential reasons that rounded in the coequal branch.
WARNER: Just so I understand, is that mean you claim executive privilege?
SESSIONS: I’m not claiming executive privilege because that’s the president’s power and I have no power there” (Politico, 2017).
So he said to Senator Warner, that he is following this policy of Ronald Reagan, but says is coequal branch. Which shows that he is guessing more than knowing of it himself. As a legal mind and legal counsel to the President. It is worrying how he is struggling to explain the Executive Order. But he tried to explain it to someone else.
“SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH: Attorney General Sessions, has the president ever expressed his frustration to you regarding your decision to recuse yourself?
SESSIONS: Senator Heinrich, I’m not able to share with this committee private communications —
HEINRICH: You’re invoking executive privilege.
SESSIONS: I’m not able to invoke executive privilege. That’s the president’s prerogative.
HEINRICH: My understanding is that you took an oath, you raised your right hand here today and you said that you would solemnly tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And now you’re not answering questions. You’re impeding this investigation, so my understanding of the legal standard is that you either answer the question. That’s the best outcome. You say this is classified, can’t answer it here. I’ll answer it in closed session. That’s bucket number two. Bucket number three is to say I’m invoking executive privilege. There is no appropriateness bucket. It is not a legal standard. Can you tell me why what are these long-standing DOJ rules that protect conversations made in the executive without invoking executive privilege?
SESSIONS: Senator, I’m protecting the president’s constitutional right by not giving it away before he has a chance to review it.
HEINRICH: You can’t have it both ways.
SESSIONS: And second I am telling the truth in answering your question and saying it’s a long-standing policy of the department of justice to make sure that the president has full opportunity to decide these issues” (Politico, 2017).
So AG Sessions tried to go further to avoid answering questions, as he continue to pull the questions and not answer. Which for me implies that he knows more than he says and also that he doesn’t want to disclose. Not because it is classified, but because he fear the implications of his words. That he will entertain and continue to give evidence into the investigation. Therefore, as a prosecutor he tries to avoid the reasoning and also stop the time, so that the ones following it gets little or nearly nothing from the man. He did it to a third Senator as well!
“KING: I respect your willingness to be here. You testified a few minutes ago I’m not able to invoke executive privilege. That’s up to the president. Has the president invoked executive privilege in the case of your testimony here today?
SESSIONS: He has not.
KING: Then what is the basis of your refusal to answer these questions?
SESSIONS: Senator king, the president has a constitutional —
KING: I understand that, but the president hasn’t asserted that. You said you don’t have the power to exert executive privilege so what is the legal basis for your refusal to answer the questions?
SESSIONS: I’m protecting the right of the president to assert it if he chooses and there may be other privileges that could apply in this circumstance.
KING: Well, I don’t understand how you can have it both ways. The president can’t not assert it, and you’ve testified that only the president can assert it and yet I just don’t understand the legal basis for your refusal to answer.
SESSIONS: What we try to do, I think most cabinet officials, others that you questioned recently, officials before the committee, protect the president’s right to do so. If it comes to a point where the issue is clear and there’s a dispute about it, at some point the president will either assert the privilege or not or some other privilege would be asserted, but at this point I believe it’s premature
KING: You’re asserting a privilege.
SESSIONS: It would be premature for me to deny the president a full and intelligent choice about executive privilege. That’s not necessary at this point.
KING: You testified a few minutes ago, that quote, we were asked for our opinion. Who asked for your opinion? You testified we were asked for our opinion.
SESSIONS: My understanding is I believe I’m correct in saying the president had said so” (Politico, 2017).
So if he is trying to show it earlier, he suddenly backs down from it. As he was there to testify, but at this point he is avoiding to saying anything. AG Sessions tries to flex power and codes, but at the same time not. Because there is no proof that that the President has given the provisions to him. Instead, he uses it, but avoid it.
Many has focused on the recalling, not remembering as he cannot answer to the Senators about over 20 times during the hours of testimony, but enough people has commented on that. But the powers of using Executive Privilege to avoid answering is a disgrace to do, especially when we possible have a President who has no idea of the provision or even existence. So to grand yourself higher-powers than you possibly can have to avoid questions prove his disregard for the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing yesterday.
He did it yet another time, with yet another senator, as he again plays for time and doesn’t answer, as he himself cannot mention the name of the Executive Privilege. Therefore, take a look at that as well:
“HARRIS: And you referred to a long-standing DOJ policy. Can you tell us what policy it is you’re talking about.
SESSIONS: Well, I think most cabinet people as the witnesses, you had before you earlier, those individuals declined to comment, because we’re all about conversations with the president —
HARRIS: Sir, I’m just asking you about the DOJ policy you’ve referred to.
SESSIONS: A long-standing policy, a policy that goes beyond just the attorney general.
HARRIS: Is that policy in writing somewhere?
SESSIONS: I think so.
HARRIS: So did you not consult it before you came before this committee knowing we would ask you questions about that?
SESSIONS: Well, we talked about it. The policy is based —
HARRIS: Did you ask that it would be shown to you?
SESSIONS: The policy is based on the principle that the president —
HARRIS: Sir, I’m not asking about the principle. I’m asking when you would be asked these questions–
SESSION: Well, I’m unable to answer the quest–
HARRIS: and you would rely on that policy –” (Politico, 2017).
This is just the point about Executive Privilege! The simple point of that AG Sessions on this matter show concern about he see himself and the President. As he has no issues with using the President, but not doing it well. He want to use a policy he doesn’t know the name.
Still, the August 1982 Memo for the President show’s how he could have explained it:
“The privileges available to protect the confidentiality of the Attorney General’s communications with the Office of the President can be roughly categorized into three classes, depending upon the nature of the communications for which the privilege is asserted, the interests which are sought to be protected by the claim of privilege, and the persons against whom the claim is made. This memorandum represents an effort by this Office to provide the Attorney General with a general outline of the privileges available to him to protect his confidential communications and working papers from compulsory disclosure when he believes that disclosure would be against the interests of the Department, the President, or the broader “ public,” and to provide guidelines for the assertion of those privileges. While the foregoing discussion should prove helpful in providing a framework for analysis of potential claims of privilege, we would caution that the applicability of any privilege to a given set of circumstances will almost always involve a judgment of competing values. While the Attorney General or the client must decide initially whether to assert the privilege, the task of resolving conflicts arising out of such competing values, in the final analysis, is one that is reserved to the courts” (Politico, 2017).
This here says it all. But that is just what I recall and recollect of this matter. Since AG Sessions oblivious did what he could to abstain and not say anything. This is proven by his recollection and his remembering of the affairs during the Trump campaign. Since most of the hearing went-on like this! Peace.
Reference:
Deputy Attorney General Theodore B. Olson – ‘Confidentiality of the Attorney General’s
Communications in Counseling the President – MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’ (02.08.1982)
President Ronald Reagan – ‘Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies – Subject: Procedures Governing Responses to Congressional Requests for Information’ (04.11.1982)
Politico – ‘Transcript: Jeff Sessions’ testimony on Trump and Russia’ (13.06.2017) link: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/13/full-text-jeff-session-trump-russia-testimony-239503

As the Police has monitored and followed the moves of Forum for Democratic Change in Bunyoro, even standing guards around the compounds of the retreat that the FDC during the week. You can tell that the government does not spare a single shilling in the mind of keeping the FDC at bay. Clearly, the Police Force in Masindi was preoccupied with handling the matters and silencing the FDC. Not catching criminals, because that is not important in the Republic of Uganda. It is more important to count the steps and gasoline run by the White SUV of Dr. Kizza Besigye. Therefore, this shallow and truthful news coming from URN wasn’t that surprising considering how many times they have done it!
“The officials arrived at Masindi Stadium at around 5pm and agreed with police to conclude the rally within 30 minutes. Dr. Kiiza Besigye, the former FDC president addressed the residents and urged them to jealously guard their land from government officials who have turned to it for survival since they have stolen all the money for service delivery” (…) “Besigye ignored the directives and continued speaking leading to a heated verbal exchange between FDC party officials and heavily armed police personnel. As a result, Police threatened to use teargas prompting Besigye to cut short his speech and drive away with police patrol cars behind him. Waiswa told reporters that they couldn’t allow Besigye go beyond the allocated 30 minutes” (Ogga & Gucwaki, 2017).
So again, the Police Force has stopped a rally, another rally in the series of spreading the information of land grabbing and of making sure the citizens know their rights. That is deemed unfit and not the sort of subject the citizens need. Especially in districts close to the vast oil reserves, which the state intent to only to supplement the income of the President, not his fellow citizens. If it were, wouldn’t the new debt in the budgets be recovered sooner, instead of a Presidential Handshake?
Well, as state of affairs goes, the state continues to hamper with rallies of opposition, the police continue to vital part of politics, instead of fighting crime. The Police is more concerned with the moves of FDC and “Bad DP“, than of actual police work. The opposition are more often criminals, than the average chicken thief’s, just pound on that for a hot-moment. Certainly, it will be more chicken-soup and less chicken, boiled water on bones instead of flesh. Since, the Police Force cannot stop themselves from being political active. Their mandate under this administration is to subdue and silence the ones who does not comply with the vision of Museveni. Peace.
Reference:
Ogga, Thembo Kahungu Misairi & Gucwaki, Yosam – ‘POLICE STOP BESIGYE RALLY IN MASINDI’ (14.06.2017) – Uganda Radio Network – link: https://ugandaradionetwork.com/story/police-stops-besigye-rally-in-masindi

















Geneva, 5 June 2017
RE: Renewing the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea
Your Excellencies,
We, the undersigned civil society organisations, write to urge your delegation to co-sponsor a resolution renewing the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea at the forthcoming 35th Session of the UN Human Rights Council. In view of the ongoing crimes under international law, including torture, enslavement and enforced disappearances, and violations of fundamental freedoms committed in Eritrea, the Special Rapporteur’s mandate remains an indispensable mechanism to advance the protection and promotion of human rights in Eritrea.
The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was established at the 20th UN Human Rights Council Session in 2012 to monitor the human rights situation in Eritrea. From June 2014-June 2016, the mandate was also represented on the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea (CoI). The mandate of the Special Rapporteur was extended in July 2016 to follow-up on the recommendations of the CoI. It has been instrumental in monitoring the dire situation on the ground, highlighting on-going violations and the failure to implement the recommendations of the CoI and in providing a crucial platform to help amplify the voices and concerns of victims.
The findings of the CoI and UN Special Rapporteur reveal that the Eritrean authorities have continued to impose a broad range of unwarranted restrictions on fundamental human rights, precipitating mass migration, including of unaccompanied children. Despite commitments by the State to reduce national service to 18 months, indefinite national service and forced labor persist throughout the country. [1] Persons who attempt to avoid military conscription, take refuge abroad, practice an unsanctioned religion, or who criticise government officials continue to be arrested and imprisoned for lengthy periods. [2]
The absence of an independent judiciary means that victims of these human rights violations have no recourse to justice at home. As a result, in Eritrea impunity persists and those who have been subjected to enforced disappearances remain unaccounted for.
In light of these concerns, we respectfully request your delegation to co-sponsor a resolution during the 35th UN HRC session that renews the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea, provides the mandate holder with all necessary support, and urges the Government of Eritrea to cooperate with the mandate holder including allowing unencumbered access to the country.
Sincerely,
Africa Monitors
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Citizens for Democratic Rights in Eritrea
CIVICUS
Connection e.V
DefendDefenders (East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project)
Eritrean Diaspora in East Africa
Eritrean Lowland League
Eritrean Law Society
Eritrea Focus
Eritrean Movement for Democracy and Human Rights
Eritreans for Human and Democratic Rights – UK
FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights)
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Human Rights Concern – Eritrea
Human Rights Watch
Information Forum For Eritrea
International Fellowship of Reconciliation
International Service for Human Rights
Network of Eritrean Women
PEN Eritrea
People for Peace in Africa
Release Eritrea
Reporters Without Borders
Stop Slavery in Eritrea Campaign
War Resisters International
