Is Trump going to pardon Julian Assange? – The Week Magazine

Posted on August 20, 2017 by admin

Could President Trump be considering a pardon for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange? That is the latest rumor after California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R) met with Assange earlier this week to discuss "what might be necessary to get him out" of asylum, The Daily Caller reports.

The rumors reignited Friday morning when an account that tracks who the Trump family follows shared that Donald Trump Jr. followed Assange:

Assange faces sexual assault charges in Sweden and if he returned there, he could be deported to the U.S. where he could face a potential death penalty for leaking documents with Edward Snowden. To avoid the charges, Assange has lived in the Ecuadorian embassy since 2012.

In his interview, Rohrabacher suggested that Assange might be pardoned in exchange for information about the Democratic National Committee email leak last year. "[Assange] has information that will be of dramatic importance to the United States and the people of our country as well as to our government," Rohrabacher told The Daily Caller. "Thus if he comes up with that, you know he's going to expect something in return. He can't even leave the embassy to get out to Washington to talk to anybody if he doesn't have a pardon."

Assange notably has argued that Russia was not involved in the DNC hack, contrary to reports by U.S. intelligence. Rohrabacher has been criticized for being too soft on Russia.

Rohrabacher added, "I can't remember if I have spoken to anybody in the White House about this," but "there has already been some indication that the president will be very anxious to hear what I have to say if that is the determination that I make." Read the full interview at The Daily Caller. Jeva Lange

See more here:
Is Trump going to pardon Julian Assange? - The Week Magazine

Calls for FBI investigate to Dana Rohrabacher’s meeting with Julian Assange grow – Salon

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

Just to be clear, I am an advocate of political and corporate transparency. So too, I would imagine, are manyof Julian Assanges supporters.

Do you know who doesnt support transparency, though? Julian Assange.

Sure, he supports transparency forspecific groups when doing so fits withhis personal ideological agenda the Democratic National Committee, the American military-industrial complex, etc. But a true advocate of transparency believes that all powerful institutions should be held accountable.

They are consistent.

As a new report reveals, consistencyjust isnt Assanges bag. The most likely explanation for this (aside from his right-wing biases) is that he seems to be a tool of the Russian government. According to a new report by Foreign Policy, Assange refused to publishat least 68 gigabytes of data with documents that contained damning information about the Russian government. This decision occurred in the summer of 2016, around the same time that Assange was publishing Democratic National Committee emails to damage Hillary Clintons campaign emails which are believed to have been obtained by a Russian hack (a story by The Nation attempts to cast doubt on that but is currently under review by the publications editors).

According to partial chat logs reviewed by Foreign Policy, WikiLeaks came up with a number of excuses for not publishing the documents. Initially, they claimed that the documents were already public, even though the data that had been previously published (all the way back in 2014) was less than half of what was presented to Assange two years later. Later, WikiLeaks told the source that they wouldnt publish the documents because they wanted to focuson the 2016 presidential election (i.e., destroying Hillary Clinton).

Is there an election angle? Were not doing anything until after the election unless its [sic] fast or election related. We dont have the resources, WikiLeaks wrote, adding that doing so would be diversionary.

WikiLeaks confirmed this in a direct message on Twitter to Foreign Policy, writing that WikiLeaks schedules publications to maximize readership and reader engagement.During distracting media events such as the Olympics or a high profile election, unrelated publications are sometimes delayed until the distraction passes but never are rejected for this reason.

They also claimed that WikiLeaks rejects all submissions that it cannot verify. WikiLeaks rejects submissions that have already been published elsewhere or which are likely to be considered insignificant. WikiLeaks has never rejected a submission due to its country of origin.

As the source of the messages told Foreign Policy, Many Wikileaks staff and volunteers or their families suffered at the hands of Russian corruption and cruelty, we were sure Wikileaks would release it. Assange gave excuse after excuse.

More recently, Assange made his alliance with Russias totalitarian regime crystal clear bymeeting on Wednesdaywith Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of California. Rohrabacher, you may recall, has earned the nicknamePutins favorite congressmandue to his bizarre fixation with and support of the Russian authoritarian regime. In case you think this story is all about Russia, take a look at the other person who attended the Assange-Rohrabacher meeting: Charles C. Johnson, anotorious white supremacist, who claims he helped arrange the meeting. Johnson was banned from Twitter for encouraging his supporters for help in taking out a civil rights activist.

The Washington Post reported on Friday thata Democrat running against Rohrabacher has asked the FBI to probe the Republican congressmans political and financial ties to Russia

This isnt the first time that Assange has opposed leaks which embarrass Russia. Back in 2014, when the Panama Papers exposed widespread corruption among the Russian elite, Assange denounced those leaksas an American plot (without evidence). Nor is Assanges apparent connection with a virulent racist his only association with the far right. He has also favorably retweeted posts from alt right pundit and discredited journalist Mike Cernovich, expressed support for alt right darling and fired Google engineer James Damore and, as far back as 2013, endorsed a slate of far right political parties in Australian elections.

And, of course, one must not forget that Assange has repeatedly demonstrated that misogyny is one of the main ideological fuels that drives his various crusades. This fact has been evident for years primarily in the fact that Assange is accused of raping two women, which he blames on feminism, and only avoided accountability by running out the clock but most recently became clear in the documentary Risk.

I am certain that I will receive numerous angry emailsand comments from Assange fanboys insisting that, by virtue of criticizing their dear leader, I must be opposed to the goal of transparency. To this, I simply respond that unless those supporters are also sympathetic to the alt right and/or Putins Russia (which is essentially fascist itself) they need to seriously reevaluate their hero worship for the man.

Transparency is a noble and vital cause. Assange is, to put it generously, a severely compromised individual, one whose moral and ideological shortcomings make it impossible for people of good will and genuine intellectual detachment to support him.

The latest revelations from Foreign Policy, as well as his meeting with Putins favorite congressman and his white supremacist ally, only reinforce that point.

Go here to see the original:
Calls for FBI investigate to Dana Rohrabacher's meeting with Julian Assange grow - Salon

California politics updates: Rohrabacher says he’ll take info he learned from Julian Assange back to President Trump – Los Angeles Times

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

Orange County GOP Rep.Dana Rohrabacher confirmed that he met Wednesdaywith WikiLeaksfounder Julian Assange, who is still living in asylum at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

In a statement, Rohrabacher'soffice said theAustralian fugitive "emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved" in the theft ofDemocratic National Committee emails during the 2016 presidential campaign. The emails, which were published by WikiLeaks, putDemocratic candidate Hillary Clinton on the defensive.

The conversation between Rohrabacher and Assange, which was first reported by the Daily Caller,"ranged over many topics," according to thestatement. The statement didn't reveal much more, but said "the congressman plans to divulge more of what he found directly to President Trump."

Multiple U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed Russia was involved in the theft of Democratic Party emails and tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Trump.

The Justice Department, along with multipleHouse and Senate committees, are investigating potential ties between Trump's campaign and election meddling.

Rohrabacher, who has long been criticized for his fondness forRussia, believes he is the only congressman who hasvisited Assange. Rohrabacher's name has repeatedly come up in discussions of the investigation into Russian interference.

His spokesman did not respond to requests for additional comment, including questions about how the trip was funded and whether the White House was aware of the trip.

Assange has been hiding out in the Ecuadorean Embassy since 2012 to avoid sexual assault allegations against him in Sweden. That investigation wasdroppedthis year, but British authorities have said he could still be arrested for jumping bail if he leaves the embassy.

In April, CIA Director Mike Pompeodismissed Assange as a "narcissist" and called WikiLeaks a "non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia." House Speaker Paul Ryan has criticized Assange as a "sycophant for Russia."

Trump himself has expressed an affinity for Assange in the past, tweeting praise for the fugitive.

The Washington Post reported in April that federal prosecutors were weighing whether to bring charges against members of WikiLeaks, in part over information leaked by Chelsea Manning, the U.S. soldier convicted of handing over diplomatic cables to the organization.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is demanding that Rohrabacherresign from his seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"Democrats and Republicans alike agree that Julian Assange is a threat to America's national security and has aligned with the Kremlin to undermine our elections," said DCCC spokesman Drew Godinich, who called Rohrabacher'sbehavior "completely shocking."

Rohrabacher is one of the top Republican incumbentsCalifornia Democrats are hoping to topple in 2018. He has already attracted nine challengers, most of them Democrats, including real estate broker Harley Rouda, who released a campaign ad criticizing the 15-term Republican for his repeated defense of Russia.

Rohrabacher, who once worked for the Orange County Register,told The Hillthat he also planned to convey a request from Assange to Trumpfor a WikiLeaksseat inside the White House press room.

Julian passionately argued the case that WikiLeaks was vital to informing the public about controversial though necessary issues," he told The Hill. "As a former newsman myself, I can't see a reason why they shouldn't be granted news status for official press conferences."

Read the rest here:
California politics updates: Rohrabacher says he'll take info he learned from Julian Assange back to President Trump - Los Angeles Times

10 Reasons Why Central Banks Will Miss the Cryptocurrency Renaissance – CoinDesk

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

Eugne Etsebeth is an ex-central bankerwho was employed as a technologist at the South African Reserve Bank from 2013 to 2017. During his time at the reserve bank, he notablychaired the virtual currency and distributed ledger working group.

In this opinion piece, Etsebeth outlines why he believes central banks won't be able to adapt to innovations in cryptocurrency, arguing they simply aren't set up to compete with sea changes in technology.

It's a familiar trend, one that happened in communications (internet), and that is now playing out in energy (solar), manufacturing (3D printing)and finance (cryptocurrency) power and control are moving into the hands of the individual and away from nation states.

This has huge implications for central banks, which today enable nation states to maintain their monopolies over the issuance of notes, coins and sovereign bonds. While communications and manufacturing are not their focus, cryptocurrencies and initial coin offerings (ICOs) fall predominantly in the realm of central banks.

In these systems,central banks don't issue legal tender. Rather, miners and algorithms now control the issuance of tokens effectively, the money supply. Whereas previously banks were licensed to store, send and spend currency, now wallet providers and exchanges allow the same features.

The currency renaissance has arrived and central banks are studying cryptocurrencies, though some central banks are more open to change than others.

Singapore has been investigating the notion of using distributed ledger technologies to settle cross-border transactions in real time, and the Bank of England has experimented with Ripple. Central banks are even looking to build their own versions of central bank-issued digital currency (CBDC).

Even still, central banks are not well equipped to deal with the cryptocurrency renaissance.

In fact, there are10 good reasons why most central banks will find cryptocurrencies insurmountable. Sure, a small number of forward-thinking (and acting) central banks willmaintain monetary competiveness with the burgeoning cryptocurrencies and ICOs that have reared their decentralized heads.

Still, most will succumb to a mix of the following issues:

Central banks will need to attract and retain fresh talent that will enable them to deal with the new openness and transparency demands, as well as digital transformation and the increasingly complex global world.

Decision-making in central banks is like wading through treacle decisions take months because of numerouslayers of hierarchy.

Working groups need to compile voluminous and detailed documents that need to be reviewed and signed by all parties before they can proceed to the heads of departments or the deputy governors.

Academics, economists and big-picture thinkers excel in central banks. The academics ponder on conceptual issues andthe economists make interpretations from data, whereas the policy makers and regulators mull over the cause and effect of promulgating laws.

However,technologists are generally not part of the discussion when it comes to policy and economic decisions for currency.

Although some central banks are engaging in experimentation, there is a fear of going from proof-of-concept to pilot phase.

This is natural, should a central bank make an error, it may turn out to be a reputation buster and reputation is the cornerstone of central banks. There is also some trepidation that the early regulation of cryptocurrencies, and associated new technologies, may legitimize their adoption.

Central banks are similar to conglomerates in that they have a number of different and distinct departments that require diverse skills and outputs.

These differences make it difficult to approach a new technology and economic tour de force like cryptocurrency, because it doesnt fit neatly into any one of the industrial-style conglomerate domains.

To highlight the conglomerate type nature of central banks, the core departments and skill sets are listed below:

Most central banks do not have substantial software development capability. Therefore any new project will have to buy its technology. There is an acute shortage of central bankers who can explain or use Merkle trees.

A large portion of central bankers are career central bankers, so the desire and ability to change arenot incentivised. Change is often considered a threat to staff, and threats are met with jelly-like stickiness to the status quo.

Banks are licensed to operate by central banks, giving them the ability to create money from customer deposits.

The central bank asks the banks to protect depositor's hard-earned money and to serve as many customers as it can: i.e. maximizingfinancial inclusion. The task of banks is therefore to service anation's citizens at the behest of the central bank.

These relationships and licenses are expensive to buy and will not easily be changed to include new members.

Just as the departments within central banks tend to be siloed, so too are the intergovernmental departments that look at currency matters.

They cover treasury, financial intelligence (KYC), financial services conduct authority, central bank, tax revenue and secret service units. Each of these units may have different acts and regulations that overlap cryptocurrencies and ICOs.

Internationally the nation-state must get guidance from a multitude of organisations like the G20 or G7, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Bank of International Settlements (BIS), Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and INTERPOL. International coordination often requires prolonged diplomacy and mismatched agendas.

Statue of Davidimage via Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk strives to offer an open platform for dialogue and discussion on all things blockchain by encouraging contributed articles. As such, the opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the view of CoinDesk.

For more details on how you can submit an opinion or analysis article, view our Editorial Collaboration Guide or email [emailprotected].

View post:
10 Reasons Why Central Banks Will Miss the Cryptocurrency Renaissance - CoinDesk

Australia Weighs Jail Time for Cryptocurrency Exchange Offenders – CoinDesk

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

New details have emerged about Australia's proposed cryptocurrency exchange law.

As reported yesterday by CoinDesk, Australia is moving ahead with plans to formalize the government's oversight of the domestic exchange space. Specifically, the government wants to update existing anti-money laundering statutes to account for the tech.

A draft text of the bill has since beenposted to the website of the Australian Parliament, offering key details on how the country plans to regulate the industry.

Of particular note are the penalties for operating an unlicensed cryptocurrency exchange offenders could face as many as seven years in prison, depending on the severity of the violation and whether they've received prior warnings from regulators.

First-time offenders could be hit with prison sentences as long as two years and as much as $100,000 in fines. Repeat offenders may also receive fines as high as $400,000.

"A person...must not provide a registrable digital currency exchange service to another person if the first person is not a registered digital currency exchange provider," the bill states.

The measure also outlines the creation of a so-called "Digital Currency Exchange Register", which would be overseen by the Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), the Australia's foremost financial intelligence agency.

The registration process could take as many as 180 days, according to the bill's text, depending on the outcome of AUSTRAC's approval process and if subsequent filings are required by the applicant.

In statements yesterday, the Australian government positioned the measure as one that would close a "gap" in the regulatory structure for cryptocurrency businesses.

"The bill will ... close a regulatory gap by bringing digital currency exchange providers under the remit of AUSTRAC," officials said.

Prison bars image via Shutterstock

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is an independent media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. Have breaking news or a story tip to send to our journalists? Contact us at [emailprotected].

Originally posted here:
Australia Weighs Jail Time for Cryptocurrency Exchange Offenders - CoinDesk

SEC Statements Spur ShapeShift to Review Cryptocurrency Listings … – CoinDesk

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

Cryptocurrency exchange service is reviewing its listings in light of recent statements on initial coin offerings (ICOs) from the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

In a new blog post, the exchange said that it was launching the review, which could see it delist some of the trading pairs it offers, in a bid to avoid being "mischaracterized as a securities exchange."

As CoinDesk previously reported, the SEC revealed last month that it had been investigating The DAO, the ethereum-based funding vehicle that raised more than $150 million through a token sale. The agency ultimately ruled that those tokens which were sold and later freely traded on cryptocurrency exchanges qualify as securities, and that other token sales may fall under this definition as well.

It's in light of this statement that ShapeShift has asked its lawyers to examine whether the Howey Test a long-standing test used to determine whether certain assets qualify as securities applies to the tokens it lists. It's a notable development whichsignals that the SEC statement is having at least some impact on the startups that facilitate the exchangeof blockchain-based tokens.

ShapeShift explained in the blog post:

"This means that we may need to delist some types of tokens from the platform, which is unfortunate for our users who have enjoyed the ability to participate in these experimental and innovative technologies. We have thus instructed our counsel to examine the tokens available on ShapeShift, especially through the lens of the Howey Test, which is the test the SEC applies to determine the presence of a security."

As the statement goes on to suggest, US-based customers of ShapeShift may be the ones that feel the biggestimpact as the review moves ahead.

"As that analysis is done, certain tokens may be removed from the service for individuals within the United States, who will then no longer be able to interact with these technologies safely or transparently through the ShapeShift platform," the startup said, going on to add that it may "consider the application of the Howey test to all new tokens we list."

Disclosure: CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in ShapeShift.

SEC image via Flickr

Follow this link:
SEC Statements Spur ShapeShift to Review Cryptocurrency Listings ... - CoinDesk

Sentencing Guidelines, Wikileaks’ Biases and the PDB Quiz – OZY

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

Know This:Inmates in Tennessee were offered shortened sentences in exchange for agreeing to be sterilized, in a practice critics are likening to eugenics. Some are questioning Wikileaks motives for reportedly refusing to publish a cache of documents about the Russian government during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign. And studies of mice show memories of fear could potentially be permanently erased from the brain.

Try This:Feeling presidential after a week of briefings?Prove itwith thePDBquiz.

Answer This:Tell us how you really feel. OZYs next TV show,Third Rail With OZY,is launching on PBS this fall! To kick things off, were shelving the PC and whipping up debates. Each Wednesday, well post a provocative question, focusing on topics that might make it onto the show. This week: Should government leaks always be illegal?Why or why not? Go deep. Emailthirdrail@ozy.comwithyourthoughts or a personal story, and we might featureyour answer next week.

Original post:
Sentencing Guidelines, Wikileaks' Biases and the PDB Quiz - OZY

Chelsea Manning released: The past ‘is only my starting point …

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

Chelsea Manning was released from military prison today after seven years of incarceration at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, a free woman after President Obama commuted her sentence three days before he left office. Her imprisonment was longer than any whistleblower in U.S. history.

Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Jennifer Johnson confirmed to ABC News that Manning left Fort Leavenworth's disciplinary barracks at 2 a.m. central time.

In an exclusive statement to ABC News, Manning said, I appreciate the wonderful support that I have received from so many people across the world over these past years. As I rebuild my life, I remind myself not to relive the past. The past will always affect me and I will keep that in mind while remembering that how it played out is only my starting point, not my final destination.

Manning released another statement hours after her release, saying, After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived. I am looking forward to so much! Whatever is ahead of me, is far more important than the past. Im figuring things out right nowwhich is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me.

We are able to confirm that Chelsea Manning has been released safely from military prison," Manning's clemency and appellate lawyers Nancy Hollander and Vincent Ward said in a joint statement. "Thank you to everyone for ensuring her safe release and respecting her privacy as she starts to adjust to life outside of prison and rebuild her life following seven years of confinement. Chelsea has expressed her deep appreciation to her supporters and looks forward to the future.

In the summer of 2013, Manning was convicted by a military tribunal under the Espionage and Computer Fraud and Abuse Acts and sentenced to 35 years in prison for releasing approximately 750,000 documents to WikiLeaks, of which only small amount of those documents ultimately lead to her conviction (some of them were published by The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel). Manning at that time was a 22-year-old United States Army private named Bradley Manning. The information she disclosed included low level battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, evidence of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo prison camp detainee profiles and U.S. diplomatic correspondence.

After he commuted her sentence, President Obama said, It has been my view that given she went to trial, that due process was carried out, that she took responsibility for her crime, that the sentence that she received was very disproportionate relative to what other leakers had received and that she had served a significant amount of time, that it made sense to commute, and not pardon, her sentence.

I feel very comfortable that justice has been served, Obama added.

Two days after her commutation, Manning tweeted (@xychelsea) Thank you @BarackObama for giving me a chance. =,). While Manning cannot physically tweet from Fort Leavenworth, she is in editorial charge of her Twitter handle as well as her website, Luminairity.com, per her legal team.

Manning began a tweet countdown to freedom starting with 105 days and a wake up =) To soft sheets, puffy blankets, and foam pillows. ^_^"

She gave a nod to Star Wars on May 4th posting: 12 more days! Celebrating a new hope, and a return of the sun. <3 #MayTheFourthBeWithYou.

Her 35 year sentence was the heaviest handed down to a whistleblower or leaker in U.S. history. She was convicted of 17 of the 22 charges against her but acquitted of charges alleging she aided the enemy or that she intended to harm the national security interests of the country.

Lauren C. Anderson, a former FBI executive and international consultant, is a 29-year veteran of the agency who worked extensively in national security arena. She told ABC News, I understand why Chelsea was outraged about the mistreatment of people in U.S. custody but (leaks) put people at risk, adding, (Chelsea) didnt have the authority to decide which classified information should be in the public, because she didnt understand the bigger picture in terms of impact, of releasing all that classified information.

Days after Manning was sentenced, she came out as transgender on August 22, 2013. The military would not provide her with any treatment for her gender dysphoria, which she claimed resulted in her escalating distress. Her ACLU lawyer, Chase Strangio, filed a lawsuit on her behalf in September 2014.

Ultimately, we negotiated with the military and Chelsea was provided with cosmetics, grooming items available to other women in custody and hormone therapy, Strangio told ABC News. On February 11, 2017, Manning tweeted: Wow, I can't believe today marks two years since starting hormones =o.

The military continued to enforce the male grooming standards against her, forcing her to cut her hair every two weeks. The part of the lawsuit challenging the restrictions on her hair is ongoing but will become moot once she is released, Strangio added.

According to Strangio, Manning became the first military prisoner to receive health care related to gender transition and was part of a shift in practice that lead to the elimination of the ban on open trans service in the military. Strangio has been a part of her advocacy team for the past four years providing support on a range of issues from prison disciplinary matters to the petition for clemency to general support around her transition.

Manning was held in solitary confinement for most of the time following her arrest in May 2010 until she was sent from Quantico to Leavenworth in March 2011. She was held in solitary in Kuwait and at Quantico. She was also placed in solitary several times during her incarceration at Leavenworth following her sentencing.

In her letter to President Obama asking to commute her sentence, Manning wrote: The Army kept me in solitary confinement for nearly a year before formal charges were brought against me. It was a humiliating and degrading experience - one that altered my mind, body and spirit. I have since been placed in solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure for an attempted suicide despite a growing effort - led by the President of the United States - to stop the use of solitary confinement for any purpose. Manning attempted to end her life two times in the years since her 2013 sentence.

Strangio noted that while Manning herself has been the key force behind the campaign for her freedom, she was greatly aided by a team who have fought relentlessly, from her court martial attorney, David Coombs, to her appellate team of Nancy Hollander, Vince Ward, and Dave Hammond. Christina DiPasquale, founder of Balestra Media, has also been working for Manning pro bono for years to help elevate her story and as have friends across the country, including Evan Greer from Fight for the Future.

In December 2013, Manning wrote Hollander a letter asking if she would handle her appeal of her conviction and her sentence through the military courts. Hollander and her partner Ward immediately agreed. Manning later asked them to also assist her in applying for clemency, which they did. Ward believed representing Manning was simply the right thing to do. Ward noted that Manning took responsibility for disclosing classified information, a fact many people forget. What she fought was the allegation that she disclosed the materials to aid the enemy or to harm the nations national security interests. The evidence indisputably shows she thought she was doing the right thing.

On January 17, 2017, Hollander was in her office when she got a call from President Obamas counsel at the White House: He asked if I was Chelsea Mannings lawyer and I said yes. He then said the President has commuted her sentence to time served plus 120 days and will announce it in two minutes. I think I screamed Oh my God! Hollander expressed her gratitude to President Obama saying the military claims to always take care of its Soldiers but no one ever had taken care of Chelsea until her Commander-in-chief commuted her sentence.

Manning is still considered to be on active duty in the Army until her criminal appeal is complete. Hammond explained that when service members are sentenced to a punitive discharge (in Mannings case, a dishonorable discharge), that part of the sentence is not executed until the appellate process is complete. Thus, Mannings dishonorable discharge is not effective until the Army Court of Criminal Appeals has issued a decision and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has either denied a petition or granted it and issued a decision.

According to Hammond, Manning is in the middle of her appeal, she is still very much in the Army, on active duty, subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. When Soldiers are in the middle of an appeal and not in confinement, the Army places them on involuntary excess leave, otherwise known as appellate leave i.e. unpaid leave. They are not discharged until the appeal is done.

Manning is now Private E-1, explained Hammond. Part of her sentence reduced her in rank from a PFC (E-3) to a PVT (E-1). According to Hammond, Manning will have all of the military benefits of an active duty soldier upon her release because she will not be dishonorably discharged until her appeal is complete (and that is assuming the appellate court affirms the punitive discharge).

Not many people can talk about Manning on a personal level. The Army prohibited visitors with the exception of her lawyers - unless they knew her prior to her arrest. Nevertheless, she accrued, while behind bars, staunch supporters and friends.

DiPasquale worked pro-bono for the past year and a half with Manning. I believe in her and I believe in everyones right to open and affordable communications, she explained. Chelsea fought to communicate and her ability to stay connected and express herself was, in many ways, key to her survival and freedom, noted DiPasquale. She described Manning as a person driven by her values and her conscience. Despite everything she has been through, she starts every call by asking how I am doing. Her laugh is contagious and her spirit is unbreakable.

Strangio is one of the few who speaks to Manning regularly and has met her in person. He sees her as a funny, kind, and brilliant person who unusually empathetic and earnest. Despite all she has been through she retains a positive attitude and a beautiful and hopeful vision for the future.

Singer-songwriter Evan Greer organized an online benefit album, entitled Hugs for Chelsea, which was compiled by a group of prominent musicians to show their support and raise funds to cover Chelseas living expenses as she transitions out of prison. She said they have raised more than $6,000 to date.

"Chelsea and I would often talk about music. We have different tastes, but we both love it," Greer told ABC News. "This album was sort of my 'getting out of prison' surprise gift for her. I wanted to make sure she had a reminder of just how much love and support she has from so many different people from all over the world. As a transgender musician and activist, I'm always looking for ways to use music and art as a tool to support grassroots movements for justice and liberation.

ABC's Sarah Kolinovsky and Lauren Effron contributed to this report

Whataboutism: The Cold War tactic, thawed by Putin, is brandished by Donald Trump – Chicago Tribune

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

What about Antifa? What about free speech? What about the guy who shot Steve Scalise? What about the mosque in Minnesota that got bombed? What about North Korea? What about murders in Chicago? What about Ivanka at the G-20? What about Vince Foster? If white pride is bad, then what about gay pride? What about the stock market? What about those 33,000 deleted emails? What about Hitler? What about the Crusades? What about the asteroid that may one day kill us all? What about Benghazi?

What about what about what about.

We've gotten very good at what-abouting.

The president has led the way.

His campaign may or may not have conspired with Moscow, but President DonaldTrump has routinely employed a durable old Soviet propaganda tactic. Tuesday's bonkers news conference in New York was Trump's latest act of "whataboutism," the practice of short-circuiting an argument by asserting moral equivalency between two things that aren't necessarily comparable. In this case, the president wondered whether the removal of a statue of Confederate leader Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville where white supremacists clashed this weekend with counterprotesters would lead to the teardown of others.

Robert E. Lee? What about George Washington?

"George Washington was a slave owner," Trump said to journalists in the lobby of his corporate headquarters. "Are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson?"

Using the literal "what about" construction, Trump then went on to blame "both sides" for the violence in Charlottesville.

"What about the 'alt-left' that came charging at the, as you say, the 'alt-right'?" the president said. "Do they have any semblance of guilt?"

For a nanosecond, especially to an uncritical listener, this stab at logic might seem interesting, even thought-provoking, and that's why it's a useful political tool. Whataboutism appears to broaden context, to offer a counterpoint, when really it's diverting blame, muddying the waters and confusing the hell out of rational listeners.

"Not only does it help to deflect your original argument but it also throws you off balance," says Alexey Kovalev, an independent Russian journalist, on the phone from Moscow. "You're expecting to be in a civilized argument that doesn't use cheap tricks like that. You are playing chess and your opponent while making a lousy move he just punches you on the nose."

Ashley Parker and David Nakamura

Vladimir Putin has made a national sport of what-abouting. In 2014, when a journalist challenged him on his annexation of Crimea, Putin brought up the U.S. annexation of Texas. The American invasion of Iraq is constantly what-abouted on state television, to excuse all kinds of Russian behavior.

In Edward Snowden, "Russia has found the ultimate whataboutism mascot," the Atlantic's Olga Khazan wrote in 2013. "By granting him asylum, Russia casts itself, even if momentarily, as a defender of human rights, and the U.S. as the oppressor."

The term was first coined as "whataboutery" and "the whatabouts," in stories about the Irish Republican Army in the 1970s, according to linguist Ben Zimmer. But the practice goes back to the chilly depths of the Cold War.

"An old joke 50 years ago was that if you went to a Stalinist and criticized the Soviet slave-labor camps, the Stalinist would say, 'Well what about the lynchings in the American South?'" philosopher Noam Chomsky once said.

In 1970, as the Soviet Union made headlines for imprisoning dissidents, Ukrainian artist Viktor Koretsky created a propaganda lithograph titled "American Politics at home and abroad." It depicted U.S. police beating a black man and a U.S. soldier standing over a dead body, presumably in Vietnam.

In May 1985 the State Department funded a conference at the Madison Hotel on the fallacy of "moral equivalence," a philosophical cousin of whataboutism. The goal was to tamp down comparisons of the 1983 U.S. invasion of Grenada with the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, among other instances. The actions may be comparable, the State Department implied, but the intentions were not.

"If it is no longer possible to distinguish between freedom and despotism," said Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations, then "the erosion of the foundation of a distinctively Western, democratic civilization is already far advanced and the situation serious indeed."

Flash forward 30 years. President Trump's Twitter feed has been a whataboutism showcase, with Hillary Clinton as the usual target.

April 3: "Did Hillary Clinton ever apologize for receiving the answers to the debate? Just asking!"

June 26: "The real story is that President Obama did NOTHING after being informed in August about Russian meddling."

July 22: "... What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia ..."

Googling of "Whataboutism" began to climb sharply in November of last year; this week, with Charlottesville, it reached an all-time high. "You look at both sides," Trump said Tuesday, after saying "what about" three times. "I think there is blame on both sides ... and nobody wants to say that."

Some people saw this as brave truth-telling, and as exposing double standards in the media.

"Trump-haters on both sides of the aisle simply cry 'whataboutism,' as if it were a magic spell to ward off rational thought," wrote Joel B. Pollak on the right-wing site Breitbart, in an article headlined "The attack on 'whataboutism' is a defense of hypocrisy."

Trump's most flagrant what-about, though, was used not in defense of himself, but in defense of Russia.

"Putin's a killer," Bill O'Reilly said to Trump in a February interview.

"There are a lot of killers," Trump whatabouted. "We've got a lot of killers. What do you think our country's so innocent?"

"That's exactly the kind of argument that Russian propagandists have used for years to justify some of Putin's most brutal policies," wrote Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration.

Read this article:
Whataboutism: The Cold War tactic, thawed by Putin, is brandished by Donald Trump - Chicago Tribune

Encryption Technology Could Protect the Privacy of Your DNA – Gizmodo

Posted on August 19, 2017 by admin

Your DNA is some of the most intimate information out thereencoded in it is information about your health, your personality, your family history. Its not hard to imagine how such sensitive details could be damaging should they fall into the wrong hands. And yet, the privacy practices of the people and programs handling that information isnt exactly up to snuff.

Researchers at Stanford, though, say they may have a fix for the lagging privacy protocols putting anyone whos ever done a DNA test at risk of indecent exposure. In a study published Friday in Science, researchers say that they have developed a genome cloaking technique that makes it possible to study the human genome for the presence of disease-associated genes without revealing genetic information not directly associated with the information being sought.

The hope, they wrote, is to lessen the concerns of genomic privacy violations and genetic discrimination that taint DNA testing.

Applying the principals of cryptography to human biology, researchers were able to correctly identify gene mutations in groups of patients responsible for causing four different rare diseases, as well as the likely cause of a genetic disease in a baby by comparing his DNA to his parents. They could also determine which out of hundreds of patients shared gene mutations. In doing all this, though, they also managed to keep 97 percent or more of the participants unique genetic information completely hidden from anyone other than the owners of the DNA.

To do this, they had each participant encrypt their genome using a simple algorithm on their computer or smart phone. The encrypted information was then uploaded into the cloud, and the researchers used a secure, multi-party computation to analyze it, revealing only the genetic information important to the investigation. They were able to do so within a matter of minutes.

In 2008, Congress passed the Genetic Information and Nondiscrimination Act, but both loopholes in the law and multipleCongressional actions threaten to erode protections that already exist, making people wary of the consequences of genetic testing. The protections of GINA, for example, do not apply to life insurance, long-term care, or disability insurance, meaning those companies are free to ask for genetic information and reject people deemed too risky. Some scientists have said that fears of genetic discrimination could impact the health of patients, if they refuse testing that could help doctors treat them, and could stymy medical research if patients wary of testing opt not to participate in studies.

Ultimately, we will have to strike a balance: A way to share the secrets of our biology with doctors and scientists, while also protecting our privacy.

Visit link:
Encryption Technology Could Protect the Privacy of Your DNA - Gizmodo