• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди606
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы294
      • Показать ещё
      Компании223
      • Показать ещё
      Разное227
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации50
      • Показать ещё
      Издания98
      • Показать ещё
      Формат13
      Сферы1
      Показатели4
Леон Панетта
20 февраля, 04:29

Экс-министр обороны США назвал дисфункциональным подход Трампа к нацбезопасности

Леон Панетта, три года возглавлявший Пентагон при Бараке Обаме, подверг критике "дисфункциональный" подход президента США Дональда Трампа к вопросам национальной безопасности. По его словам, сейчас США более уязвимы, пока позиция советника по нацбезопасности после отставки Майкла Флинна остаётся свободной. — Что вызывает особенное беспокойство сейчас, особенно после отставки Майкла Флинна, так это то, что в данный момент ему не нашли замену, — заявил Панетта в интервью NBC. В случае "провокаций со стороны России", "глупых действий Ирана или КНДР" США будет необходимо ответить, указал экс-министр, однако "оценить угрозу" в сложившихся обстоятельствах, по его словам, не получится. — Где структура, способная оценить угрозу, изучить её и представить варианты действий президенту? — заявил Панетта. Он также подверг сомнению сообщения СМИ о том, что разведка скрывала от Трампа некоторые секретные данные. — По своему опыту работы скажу, что никогда не сталкивался с тем, чтобы сотрудники разведки утаивали от президента секретную информацию. Сомневаюсь, что такое произошло в этот раз, — заявил он.

20 февраля, 02:21

Press Gaggle by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, 2/19/2017

Hilton-West Palm Beach West Palm Beach, Florida   4:23 P.M. EST MS. SANDERS:  Seems very formal here.  (Laughter.)  I'll keep it pretty short today.  I'm going to walk through a couple of things and then I'll take some questions. First of all, the President has had an extremely busy day today.  He has been in a number of meetings and quite a few calls, and also a lot of staff briefings and other meetings.  A couple big ones of note that you would probably find interesting:  He did several interviews and in-depth meetings that are still ongoing as of this afternoon, talking to different candidates for the National Security Advisor position.  Among those people, as of today, that he met with:  McMaster, Bolton, Caslen and Kellogg, and we may have some additional meetings and names tomorrow, and may also meet with a couple of those people again.  There's also an in-depth meeting on Obamacare.  Secretary Price, Mulvaney, Chief of Staff Priebus, Bannon, Seema Verma, and quite a few members of the domestic policy staff also were part of that meeting.  And they discussed Obamacare repeal-and-replace strategy, and that went on for several hours.  He was not there for the entirety of the meeting.   Q    Was everyone at Mar-a-Lago? MS. SANDERS:  Yes. Q    They all flew down? MS. SANDERS:  Yes.  Q    That was all in Mar-a-Lago? MS. SANDERS:  Yes.  I do believe that a couple of the people from that group also went over to the golf club, as well, for a brief period of time.  Q    You said he wasn’t there for the whole several hours? MS. SANDERS:  Correct. Q    But for part -- MS. SANDERS:  Correct.  And remember I'll get to the questions section here momentarily. He's had several foreign leader calls today, including with the President of Panama, where they talked about U.S. investment and private sector presence.  He also did a second foreign leader call with the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, where they talked about terrorism and other security challenges, including foreign fighters being the primary point of focus on those calls.  And we'll have more detailed readouts for both of those later this evening. I know there have been quite a few questions about his comments about Sweden last night.  I'll address that now as a group so we don’t have to have 75 emails to address it.  He was talking about rise in crime and recent incidents in general, not referring to a specific issue.       Q    I'm sorry, it's going too fast.  Can you just say that again? MS. SANDERS:  Sure.  He was talking about rise in crime and recent incidents in general, and not referring to a specific incident. As I said earlier, he's going to continue several meetings throughout the evening, including additional meetings with National Security Advisor candidates. And with that, I will take your questions. Q    On Sweden, where did he get the information about the rise in crime?  Was it from that Fox segment on Friday night? MS. SANDERS:  I believe he may have seen that, but I also know there have been a number of reports of rise in crime and specific incidents that have taken place over the last several weeks. Q    And also, why then did the President specifically say "last night"? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t think that was meant to be last night.  I think he was just referring to, again, in general.  I had a chance to get that clarified, and he wasn’t speaking about a specific incident the night before, but about rise in crime in general. Q    So he misspoke? MS. SANDERS:  Well, yeah -- I think he was referring to a report he had seen the previous night that spoke specifically to that topic. Q    Was that a report from Fox News? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know. Q    Sarah, you said that there may be more interviews tomorrow.  Can you tell us who those names would be? MS. SANDERS:  Not at this time.  We don’t have any further details on those yet. Q    And do you have any updates on his timeline for making the decision? MS. SANDERS:  I know he hopes to make it soon.  I would think in the next few days. Q    Can you clarify whether Ray Odierno is one of the potential candidates? MS. SANDERS:  We don’t have any further names to release right now. Q    There's been some reporting about a memo signed by Kelly, draft memos on new guidelines for detaining and deporting immigrants.  Can you talk at all about those?  And is there anything particular in the documents that the White House is objecting to?   MS. SANDERS:  Right now those are nothing more than draft memos.  There are still a lot of conversations that are taking place.  The final documents haven’t been completed.  And we expect that to happen in the next couple of days, and we'll roll that out at that time. Q    That's on the immigration executive order? MS. SANDERS:  Yes. Q    Or is it on the --  MS. SANDERS:  Are you talking about the travel EOs? Q    No, I was talking specifically about the guidelines signed by Kelly about deporting illegal immigrants.   MS. SANDERS:  Those are also draft EOs, both sets.  I know there have been multiple versions floating around.   Q    These are the ones about hiring more enforcement agents.   MS. SANDERS:  None of those are final and have not been signed off by the White House. Q    But are they an accurate reflection of where the policy is headed when it rises to the level where the Secretary signs it? MS. SANDERS:  Some components are.  But again, those haven’t even made it to the White House.  And so for that to be a final version is just not accurate.   Q    And just to clarify again, that's about -- MS. SANDERS:  There's multiple sets of EOs.  None of them are final.  They are all in draft form. Q    And what EOs can we expect this week? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t have any specific announcements about it at this time, but I think you can expect the travel EO -- the revised travel immigration one to be in the next couple of days. Q    Can you say a little bit more about the Obamacare meeting -- like, who all was there; specifically how long they met; what exactly they were talking about, and if they were looping in members of Congress or it was just a White House-centric strategy? MS. SANDERS:  There weren’t members of Congress that were present today.  There were a handful of domestic policy advisors from the White House, Secretary Price, Mulvaney.  I know several members of senior staff, Chief of Staff Priebus, Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner were all present for that meeting. Q    Can you tell us more what it was? MS. SANDERS:  Again, it was primarily a strategy meeting about laying out the plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. Q    Any response regarding Senator McCain's comments this morning that he's very concerned about the membership of the National Security Council, specifically Steve Bannon? MS. SANDERS:  I'm not going to respond to Senator McCain's comments. Q    When the President is interviewing these candidates for National Security Advisor, how much of this is simply about him vetting the candidates himself, getting a sense of what they bring to the position, versus the candidates seeking assurances about the ability to set their own staff and other aspects of the job? MS. SANDERS:  I think we've made it pretty clear that whoever takes this position will have full authority on the staffing component.  I know Chief of Staff Priebus addressed that this morning on the Sunday shows.  And I don’t know if there's anything further in that realm that you want to look for, but in terms of staffing they'll have full authority to make those decisions. Q    And the President indicated to us yesterday that his timeline is in a matter of days.  Beyond the interviews that are happening this weekend, is there anything that could happen at the White House?  Or could an announcement come before he leaves here? MS. SANDERS:  Your speculation on that is probably as good as mine.  I think it could be probably anytime in the next couple of days. Q    Sarah, was the President golfing this morning?  And who was he golfing with? MS. SANDERS:  I know he played a couple of holes this morning, but I'm not going to disclose any of the others that were there. Q    And yesterday as well? MS. SANDERS:  I do believe he played a couple of holes yesterday. Q    A couple as in two, or -- MS. SANDERS:  I don’t think it was a full round, if that's what you're asking. Q    And on the four names you identified, you said some meetings have happened and some additional would be tonight?  Would those be repeat? MS. SANDERS:  Some are ongoing right now while we're here. Q    Repeat meetings? MS. SANDERS:  Not repeat meetings tonight, but they're ongoing as I'm standing here. Q    So this first round of four goes into this evening? MS. SANDERS:  Yes, correct.   Q    And just to clarify, they're all face-to-face? MS. SANDERS:  Yes. Q    So they're just here at Mar-a-Lago? MS. SANDERS:  Yes, correct. Q    Four finalists -- that's it? MS. SANDERS:  As of right now.  And I said -- remember -- there could be additional names and additional meetings as early as tomorrow. Q    There have been a couple of reports about administration staffers who have been fired or left their jobs after criticizing the President.  One was at HUD; I believe it was the chief of staff.  And there's another report today about an NSC aide, Craig Deare, who left his job after harsh criticism of Trump.  Is it fair to say that -- I mean, are government employees allowed to criticize the President? MS. SANDERS:  He was just sent back to his original position, so he wasn’t fired. Q    Who -- MS. SANDERS:  Craig Deare. Q    More broadly, do government employees need to be concerned that they are not allowed to criticize the President or they can lose their job? MS. SANDERS:  Well, I don’t think that any person that is there in order to carry out the President's agenda should be against the President's agenda.  It seems pretty silly that you would have somebody that's not supportive of what you're trying to accomplish there to carry out that very thing. Q    What about somebody who in the past was against the President's agenda? MS. SANDERS:  Again, I think if you don’t support the President's agenda, it would be very hard for you to take a position where your very job is to carry out and help him accomplish that agenda.  If they're not onboard with specific pieces of his agenda -- for instance, if you didn’t want to help create jobs in the way of cutting regulations, then it would be really silly for him to bring you in to be part of like an economic task force. Q    Sarah, is this test contributing to the administration's, so far, so few jobs -- so few Senate-confirmed jobs being nominated for, whether it be deputy secretaries from a number of Cabinet agencies, below dep-sec level? MS. SANDERS:  I think one of the biggest problems that we've had is the obstruction by Democrats.  It's really hard to put in the secondary staff when you don’t have the leader in that office.  If you can't confirm a Secretary, you can't really start filling out the second and third positions in a lot of those agencies, and if, by comparison to past administrations, there's not that big of a gap between what we have and what they have at this point in time. Q    But even in terms of -- not in terms of nominees for the secretaries who are confirmed, what's the timeline then? MS. SANDERS:  Well, and a lot of those have just been confirmed over the last week.  So, again, that's a moving process, and we're continuing to add and grow staff every day. Q    What was the job that Mr. Deare was sent back to? MS. SANDERS:  I'll have to double-check, but I have it, I just don’t want to tell you the wrong thing.  I don’t have it right in front of me. Q    Has the President followed Vice President Pence's trip overseas at all?  And what's his reaction to his sort of debut on the world stage? MS. SANDERS:  He has.  And they've spoken several times over the past several days.  I know that both the Vice President and the President have talked to each other, as well as their staffs have both talked back and forth, and very happy with how everything is going so far. Q    Can you tell us more about how you would disagree with the President if you're in a position?  You said that if a person doesn’t agree with his agenda, they shouldn’t have a job.  But some people I'm sure disagree with certain policies.  How does that work? MS. SANDERS:  I'm not going to get into the back-and-forth on the variation of disagreement that you might be able to have in order to have a job.  I think the broader point here is if you don’t support the President's agenda, you shouldn’t have a job in the White House. Q    I mean, administration-wide, though, we're talking about.  Are you extending that to various department agencies? MS. SANDERS:  I'm not extending like a blanket policy here.  I just am saying that if you do not support the agenda and you're not there to help carry it through, then you shouldn’t be part of the administration.  Q    The report that the immigrant draft EO that's been going around that shows the same seven countries, but exemptions for travelers who already have a visa, is that where that policy is at right now?  Is that an accurate reflection of where you guys are going? MS. SANDERS:  Again, that's not final.  There's still a lot of moving parts there.  And until it's final, I don’t want to get into the details.   Q    On the NSC, one of the reasons that we were told that Harward didn’t want to take the job was the fact that he couldn’t bring in all of his own team. MS. SANDERS:  That's inaccurate information. Q    In these interviews, are the candidates being told they can bring on their own team?  Or are the deputies who are currently there going to stay? MS. SANDERS:  I know it's been made clear that they can bring on their own team, and so that's inaccurate information that you have. Q    So the candidates.  And how involved is Pence in Trump's interviews and deciding who the NSC director will be? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know his specific involvement, but I know that he and the President have spoken about it. Q    Leon Panetta today said that there has been no convening of the National Security Council in the Trump White House.  Is that accurate?  MS. SANDERS:  Not to my knowledge.  I don’t believe that's accurate.  But I'll double-check and verify that for you. Q    Let me ask you, on a slightly separate topic, we're just looking to confirm a trade story that was in the Wall Street Journal that says the administration is considering changes that would make the trade gap look larger than in past years, and that it would -- one idea would include excluding from the U.S. any exports -- any items imported to the country and then transferring them to another country, like Mexico or Canada.  Can you comment on the story? MS. SANDERS:  I saw your question on that, and I'm checking it and getting clarification.  I'll let you all know once we have it. Q    Can you tell us about last night when the President attended the cancer fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago?  We weren’t told about it.  Can you tell us a little bit about it? MS. SANDERS:  He did attend.  He and the First Lady were both present at the gala.  It's something they've gone to every year, I believe for the last 10 years.  They had dinner and then stopped by the event. Q    Who did he talk to and who did he sit with there?  Is it true he sat with Prime Minister Mulroney? MS. SANDERS:  I think he talked with quite a few people there.  I believe there were over 800 attendees, and so I think he talked to quite a few of them.  I don’t know all the names of each person. Q    Prime Minister Mulroney was at his table, is that right? MS. SANDERS:  I know that they did have an exchange.  I don’t know if they were actually seated together. Q    I know Reince confirmed this morning that the White House was aware of this request from the intelligence committee to preserve documents related to Russia.  Can you describe how those efforts are underway already?  Is the White House Counsel distributing information to make sure that staff are aware of this and doing their best to preserve the documents? MS. SANDERS:  I know that there have been instructions to preserve all documents.  But specific to that, I don’t have guidance, but I can see if we have something specific for that and let you know. One more question, anybody?  Last one.  All right, she got in first.  Last one. Q    There have been a lot of reports about the number of people who are coming down to Mar-a-Lago to meet with the President, talk with the President.  Do taxpayers pay for flying everyone down here, all the NSA candidates and the people he's meeting for for the Obamacare roundtables?  And any idea how many people that would be over the last couple of weekends? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know the exact number of people that have been here, and I don’t have a comment on the specifics of each individual travel. Q    And along the lines of Mar-a-Lago, there's been concern that people who bought membership to the club, which is now $200,000 up front, are getting special access to the President and his staff that other people don’t get.  What's the administration's response to that? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think this President is extremely accessible to most of America.  I think that's why he went out and did a rally last night, why he did a press conference earlier this week, why he comes back on the plane and talks to you guys.  I think this is the most accessible President that I've certainly ever seen, and I don’t think that that's an issue across the board.  I think he is in touch with regular Americans every single day, and, again, is very transparent and accessible across the board. Thanks, guys. Q    Do you have a week ahead, Sarah? MS. SANDERS:  Not yet, but I think we will later tonight. Q    And tomorrow, what time is he going back? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know yet.  I think we're waiting to see some of the meetings that may take place tomorrow. Thanks, guys. END 4:50 P.M. EST 

19 февраля, 23:53

Reality collides with Trump's promises

The president proclaims a successful first month despite falling short on major pledges.

19 февраля, 17:11

Panetta warns Trump's National Security Council is 'dysfunctional'

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says he's concerned about the fractured national security structure and lack of preparedness within the new Trump administration to handle a crisis. “The thing that you worry about a great deal, particularly now with the loss of a national security adviser, you don't have somebody in that place,” Panetta said in an interview airing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press." “The National Security Council hasn't even met formally,” Panetta said.Cautioning that the system in place to inform President Donald Trump about national security issues is currently “dysfunctional,” Panetta said, suggesting the critical White House apparatus to handle nation's security is broken. “What happens if there's a major crisis that faces this country? If Russia engages in a provocation, if Iran does something stupid, if North Korea does something stupid and we have to respond, where is the structure to be able to evaluate that threat, consider it, and provide options to the president?"“Right now, that's dysfunctional, and that's what worries me a great deal.”Panetta, who was also director of the CIA under President Barack Obama, doubled down on his concerns about Trump’s sustained praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin. “It’s a concern when the president continues to kind of apologize for the Russians and what they're doing,” Panetta said. Asked whether Russia should be considered a chief U.S. adversary, Panetta responded bluntly “without question.” “If he listens to the people that are closest to him now, and that are responsible for our foreign policy and our defense policy, that he'll understand that Russia is an adversary, it's not a friend," Panetta said. "Their main purpose is to destabilize the United States and Western democracies. And they've shown that in everything they've done.”

17 февраля, 00:59

Does Donald Trump Hate His New Job?

In his first extended press conference at the White House, the president railed against his critics and unspooled a series of bitter complaints.

13 февраля, 23:39

How Democracies Lose in Cyberwar

In 2016, Russia used the American system against itself.

07 февраля, 02:37

Appeals court will hear arguments on Trump travel ban

9th Circuit orders oral arguments by telephone Tuesday afternoon on federal government's request to overturn lower court's restraining order.

07 февраля, 01:14

National Security Vets Warn Court That Donald Trump's Travel Ban Threatens Country

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); As legal briefs pile up in the legal battle over the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting immigration, a group of national security veterans has made a forceful case undercutting the government’s lead argument in defense of the order. The short of it: There’s no national security justification for the president’s sweeping travel ban, which suspends all refugee resettlement temporarily and bars immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim nations. In fact, the former officials contend, his actions only leave the country worse off in the realm of foreign affairs. “We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer,” former secretaries of state John Kerry and Madeline Albright said in a signed court declaration, along with eight other former high-ranking officials who have served the national security and intelligence apparatus under both Democratic and Republican administrations. “In our professional opinion,” continued their joint declaration filed Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, “this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds.” The appeals court is soon expected to rule on whether to extend a temporary freeze on the ban, first imposed by a federal judge late Friday. The filing was attached to a legal brief by the states of Washington and Minnesota, which are urging the appeals court to affirm the temporary hold on Trump’s travel restrictions until the judge assigned the case, U.S. District Judge James Robart, may consider further evidence and arguments from both sides and decide whether to extend his initial order. Trump’s order, the officials warned, “could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid [the Islamic State’s] propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. “It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values.” Signatories to the filing include Janet Napolitano, President Barack Obama’s Homeland Security secretary during his first term; Michael Hayden, Avril Haines, Michael Morell and John McLaughlin, all formerly with the Central Intelligence Agency in various capacities; Leon Panetta, who led the CIA and later the Defense Department between 2009 and 2013; and Susan Rice, a key adviser for Obama on national security issues. The reason these former officials’ views could be persuasive to the appeals court at this early stage of the litigation is that a key argument the Trump administration is making to reinstate the travel ban is that the president’s judgment on immigration should not be scrutinized by the courts ― in large part because Congress has already ceded the power over immigration laws to the executive branch. “Judicial second-guessing of the President’s national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm on the federal government and the nation at large,” Department of Justice lawyers told the 9th Circuit in the emergency appeal they filed Saturday. But the former national security officials, several of whom served under Obama until his last day in office and thus have intimate knowledge of the system Trump inherited, said the incoming administration gave no indication that it sought to overhaul the process for screening travelers who may pose a security risk, let alone that it sought the guidance of experts in the field in advance of the order. “We know of no interagency process underway before January 20, 2017 to change current vetting procedures, and the repeated need for the Administration to clarify confusion after the Order issued suggest that that Order received little, if any advance scrutiny by the Departments of State, Justice, Homeland Security or the Intelligence Community,” the former officials wrote. Steven Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who co-signed his own brief against the travel ban alongside other scholars, said the filing further underscores that Trump’s own Twitter tirade against the judge who temporarily halted the ban has little basis in reality. “The declaration by these ten former officials confirms what most of us already suspected to be true — that it’s just not the case that ‘many very bad dangerous people’ were ‘pouring into our country’ prior to the Executive Order,” Vladeck wrote in Just Security, “and that, if anything, it’s the Executive Order itself, and not preexisting immigration laws and policies, that poses a threat to our national security.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 февраля, 22:06

Trump's Immigration Order Is Getting Slammed With Legal Opposition

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); A group of former high-level government officials, nearly 100 tech CEOs and several state governments have all mounted legal opposition to President Donald Trump’s immigration order, stating that it jeopardizes national security and stifles the U.S. economy.  The latest is a declaration filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit by former secretaries of state Madeline Albright and John Kerry and several other former national security officials. In the filing, they expressed support for the temporary restraining order a Seattle judge issued last week against Trump’s executive order barring all Syrian refugees and people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S.  Trump’s order, they wrote, endangers U.S. troops and intelligence officials in those regions, disrupts counterterrorism and diplomatic efforts, alienates Muslim Americans who could aid in identifying radicals, has a devastating humanitarian impact, hurts the U.S. economy and could feed “the recruitment narrative of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with Islam.” The letter was co-signed by former government officials including former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice. Immigrants are among our leading entrepreneurs, politicians, artists and philanthropists.” Their declaration follows an amicus ― “friend of the court” ― brief that nearly 100 influential companies, including Apple, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Twitter and Microsoft, filed late Sunday to the 9th Circuit. “Immigrants are among our leading entrepreneurs, politicians, artists and philanthropists,” the brief stated. “The experience and energy of people who come to our country to seek a better life for themselves and their children — to pursue the ‘American Dream’ — are woven throughout the social political and economic fabric of the Nation.’” The executive order, they continued, “makes it more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees,” so “American workers and the economy will suffer as a result.” Both filings were in support of a lawsuit filed by Washington state and joined by Minnesota last Friday, which won a temporary nationwide restraining order against Trump’s executive order. Also joining the action late Sunday was the state of Hawaii, which filed a motion to join the other two states in the appeal over the travel ban. The state had filed its own lawsuit in federal court hours before Trump’s order was blocked nationwide, and is now seeking intervention to protect its own unique interests. “By virtue of the State’s especially heavy reliance on tourism, the Executive Order’s travel restrictions could immediately inflict damage on its economy,” the state said in its brief. “In addition, because Hawai‘i is an island state, residents are entirely reliant on air travel to leave and return home, and, for the vast majority, to travel between islands.” The 9th Circuit on Sunday shot down the Department of Justice’s request to immediately reinstate the ban, but the court will soon determine whether to keep it frozen while the states’ challenge proceeds in lower court. In a separate case on the East Coast, the Commonwealth of Virginia asked a federal judge to force Trump, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and top government officials to show why they shouldn’t be held in contempt for failing to obey a lawful court order allowing attorneys access to legal permanent residents who had been detained at Dulles International Airport as a result of the executive order. That request and related legal challenges remain ongoing. Earlier that week, California’s state Senate passed a resolution condemning the immigration executive order, saying it “desecrates our American values and panders to fears and nativist instincts.”  In addition to the legal proceedings against Trump’s travel order, several business leaders have spoken out against it ― including those from Starbucks, Goldman Sachs, Ford, Netflix, Airbnb, Lyft and Nike ― along with many celebrities and athletes. Cristian Farias contributed reporting. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 февраля, 20:27

Как оскорбить Путина: Обама ушел, но его команда играет против Трампа

Недопустимой и оскорбительной назвал пресс-секретарь президента Дмитрий Песков реплику ведущего американского телеканала Fox News в адрес Владимира Путина. Журналисту уже ответил Дональд Трамп, объяснив, почему Америка не имеет права читать России нотации.

06 февраля, 19:48

Олбрайт и Керри в суде раскритиковали антииммиграционную политику Трампа - FT

Бывшие американские чиновники и дипломаты считают, что политика Трампа ставит США под угрозу.

06 февраля, 18:16

Экс-чиновники США выступили против запрета мигрантов

Десять бывших высокопоставленных американских дипломатов и представителей разведки, в том числе бывший государственный секретарь Джон Керри и бывший советник по нацбезопасности Сюзан Райс, представили обращение против запрета на въезд мигрантов в США.

06 февраля, 18:16

Экс-чиновники США выступили против запрета мигрантов

Десять бывших высокопоставленных американских дипломатов и представителей разведки, в том числе бывший государственный секретарь Джон Керри и бывший советник по нацбезопасности Сьюзан Райс, представили обращение против запрета на въезд мигрантов в США.

06 февраля, 16:01

Ex-top U.S. officials to court: Trump's travel ban could endanger troops and hurt national security

President Donald Trump’s travel ban is an unjustified executive order that “undermines” the nation’s national security, a group of top former national security and intelligence officials said Monday.Former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Madeleine Albright and eight other top officials filed a joint declaration to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, rebuking the president’s executive order barring travel to the U.S. from citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.“We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States,” they wrote. “We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer.”They argue that the ban “cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds,” disputing the notion that it meets its stated goal of keeping the nation safe from terrorists.“To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships,” they said. But they didn’t stop there. They warned that the executive order will assist the Islamic State “by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam,” harm relationships with Muslim communities “that law enforcement officials need to address the threat” and “have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents.”“And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values,” they added. The officials noted that no terrorist attacks have been perpetrated by individuals from any countries named in the executive order. Rather, the “overwhelming majority” of such attacks have come at the hands of U.S. citizens. The travel ban, they said, was “ill-conceived, poorly implemented and ill-explained” — and “of unprecedented scope.”“Blanket bans of certain countries or classes of people are beneath the dignity of the nation and Constitution that we each took oaths to protect,” they wrote. “Rebranding a proposal first advertised as a 'Muslim Ban' as 'Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States' does not disguise the Order’s discriminatory intent, or make it necessary, effective, or faithful to America’s Constitution, laws, or values.”The declaration was filed by Kerry; Albright; Avril Haines, a former deputy CIA director and deputy national security adviser; Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA director; John McLaughlin, a former deputy CIA director and acting director; Lisa Monaco, former White House deputy national security adviser; Michael Morrell, a former acting CIA director and deputy director; Janet Napolitano, a former homeland security secretary; Leon Panetta, a former CIA director and defense secretary; and Susan Rice; a former national security adviser.

02 февраля, 21:21

Eight Ways Trump's Executive Order On Immigration Makes Us Less Safe

In issuing his executive order immediately banning refugees and hundreds of thousands of Muslim travelers from the United States, President Trump claimed he wanted "to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals." In fact, national security experts across the political spectrum say his order does just the opposite. Calling for the order to be rescinded, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and over 100 other former senior government officials and military service members who served both the Obama and Bush Administrations are saying the executive order "not only jeopardizes tens of thousands of lives, it has caused a crisis right here in America and will do long-term damage to our national security." Here are eight ways the order does just that: 1. The order supports terrorists' claims that the U.S. is at war with Islam, by banning all nationals from seven predominantly Muslim countries for an extended period, and explicitly favoring Christian refugees. That's terrorists' primary recruiting point: that Muslims must fight back. As former CIA Director and U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, the order "gives ISIS a major argument that I think will help them in recruiting and that increases the chances of a potential attack in this country." 2. The order harms critically important U.S. relations with our partners in the Middle East. Some of those, like Iraq, are countries whose nationals have all been banned. Others, like Jordan, now face huge political hurdles cooperating with a U.S. government that has instituted what's perceived globally as a "Muslim ban." The executive order makes it virtually impossible for them to continue to provide the support, intelligence and resources the U.S. depends upon to fight terrorism. As General Hayden told The Washington Post: the order "makes it harder for our allies to side with us." 3. The order will increase anti-American sentiment among ordinary, innocent people in the targeted countries and beyond. With the stroke of a pen, 220 million citizens lost the opportunity to travel to the United States for an extended period of time. This sent the message that we see them all as dangerous, inviting them to view us as enemies as well. As about 1,000 State Department officials have pointed out in a dissent memo, almost one-third of populations in these countries are under 15 yrs old. Shunning them now will affect those societies' perceptions of the United States for decades to come, negatively influencing their future leaders. This could be a "tipping point toward radicalization," the U.S. foreign service officials warned. 4. The order directly undermines our key allies in the Middle East. By suspending all refugee resettlement for at least 120 days, prioritizing religious minority refugees, blanket banning all travel for nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries temporarily, and suspending all Syrian refugee resettlement indefinitely, our key allies in the Middle East, who have accepted large numbers of Syrian refugees, will find their resources further strained and will face further political opposition and regional turmoil. Our acceptance of Syrian refugees supports those allies and helps ease the burdens they face. The U.S. refusal to resettle Syrian refugees may encourage other countries to do likewise. That will leave front-line countries, such as Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Iraq, which already host about 80% of Syrian refugees, to host all of them. This seriously undermines global stability. 5. The order undermines U.S. global leadership and our reputation as a country that abides by international law -- in this case the international refugee convention. U.S. leadership and respect for the rule of law is one of the most important ways we encourage other countries to cooperate with us and respect the law as well. We need that cooperation for our counterterrorism, law enforcement, diplomatic and economic policies to be effective. 6. The order discourages all Muslims -- at home and abroad -- from assisting U.S. anti-terrorism efforts, because it's widely perceived as a "Muslim ban" and was advertised as such by the president and his advisors during his campaign. By targeting Muslim majority nations and favoring Christian refugees over Muslims, it suggests all Muslims are suspicious and potential enemies, while Christians are not. It also gives terrorists an excuse to attack any Muslims suspected of aiding the United States or its allies. Indeed, within 24 hours of Trump signing the order, Islamic State propagandists began exploiting the travel ban on social media. One message warned Muslims who cooperate with the US: "The dogs of the cross should know their true value now," he wrote, referring to collaborators. "Worthless!" 7. The order puts U.S. troops in grave danger. By fueling terrorists' groups claims that the U.S. is at war with Islam, the order encourages potential terrorists -- both abroad and "homegrown" -- to see American soldiers as legitimate targets. It is unconscionable for the Commander-in-Chief to directly place his own troops at risk, with no discernible national security benefit to be gained. 8. The ban could lead to retaliation from other countries. Iraqi lawmakers have already called for a ban on US citizens. Iran has already passed one. The United States already conducts "extreme vetting" of refugees resettled here. As former CIA Directors General Petraeus and General Hayden and former Defense Secretaries Panetta, Cohen, Perry, and Hagel, said in a joint letter: "The process that refugees undergo in order to be deemed eligible for resettlement in the United States is robust and thorough... Those seeking resettlement are screened by national and international intelligence agencies; their fingerprints and other biometric data are checked against terrorist and criminal databases; and they are interviewed several times over the course of the vetting process." Barring all Muslim travelers from the seven specified countries, for any period of time, will do nothing to prevent terrorism, but it will do a lot to encourage it. Suspending the resettlement of refugees, dramatically decreasing the refugee admissions, and prioritizing Christian over Muslim refugees will not make the U.S. safer, but it will show that America is abandoning its ideals and values. As former Secretary of State and George W. Bush national security advisor Condoleeza Rice said recently: "The very best public policy that we have is actually when people come here, and study, and see what it is really like to be in America... I believe strongly we still need to advocate for people seeking the freedoms we enjoy." While it's appropriate to conduct thorough security screenings of all immigrants and travelers to the United States, barring entry to whole populations is a nonsensical and dangerous policy. It will make us all less safe. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

29 января, 22:50

Россия и Вьетнам: пошлины снизятся, количество новых проектов вырастет

В ночь на 28 января в странах Восточной Азии встретили Новый год по восточному календарю. Год Огненного Петуха, по прогнозам астрологов, обещает принести много радостных событий в семейной жизни. А россияне вновь активно открывают для себя Вьетнам.

29 января, 22:50

Россия и Вьетнам: пошлины снизятся, количество новых проектов вырастет

В ночь на 28 января в странах Восточной Азии встретили Новый год по восточному календарю. Год Огненного Петуха, по прогнозам астрологов, обещает принести много радостных событий в семейной жизни. А россияне вновь активно открывают для себя Вьетнам.

29 января, 22:50

Россия и Вьетнам: пошлины снизятся, количество новых проектов вырастет

В ночь на 28 января в странах Восточной Азии встретили Новый год по восточному календарю. Год Огненного Петуха, по прогнозам астрологов, обещает принести много радостных событий в семейной жизни. А россияне вновь активно открывают для себя Вьетнам.

27 января, 05:42

Panetta: Trump statements on torture, CIA raise questions about U.S. 'leadership'

SAN FRANCISCO — Former CIA director Leon Panetta said Thursday that President Donald Trump’s insistence that torture is effective and suggestions that the administration may revive CIA “black ops” interrogation sites are raising questions about national security and the nation's global leadership.Speaking with POLITICO, Panetta said Trump’s recent statements are creating “all kinds of questions about the United States, what we represent, what are our values, whether we stick by our word, our credibility. All of those issues are raised with our allies, and very frankly, with our adversaries. Because they’re looking at it as the United States being vulnerable in terms of our world leadership.“So it’s raising even greater questions with regards to our security. “Panetta said there's "no need" for a revival of the interrogation sites. "If you're dealing with counter-terrorism operations — which is what we do — there is no need to be able to engage in the business of capture," he said.It was the sharpest criticism of Trump yet from Panetta, who also is a former director of the Office of Management and Budget and a former congressman from California. Panetta also assailed Trump's executive order to create a wall along the border with Mexico, It will, he said, “impact upon the relationship between the United States and Mexico, which has historically been a strong partnership.” “I honestly thought — and maybe this was naive on my part — that once he became president, and once he listened to people like [Homeland Security secretary] John Kelly ... and people who have foreign policy experience,’’ that he would modify the idea, or “would drop the idea and focus on more important issues ... Obviously, that is not happening.”Panetta also criticized Trump's flurry of executive orders. “At some point, the courts will step in, Congress will step in," he said. "The only way you’re able to get anything meaningful done is to engage with the Congress.”

26 января, 12:40

Can Trump Bring Back Torture?

It will take more than the executive branch to revive the practice.