Wednesday 31 August 2016

North Korea executes top education official, South Korea says

Seoul (CNN)    North Korea has executed its top education official, Kim Yong Jin, by firing squad, a South Korean government official told CNN on Wednesday. Kim was branded "anti-party and a counter-revolutionary member" by the country's State Security Department, after he exercised a "bad attitude" during North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly in June, the official said. South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Jeong Joon Hee confirmed the execution during a press conference early on Wednesday, held to address media reports of a public execution of a senior-level North Korean official.
Two other senior officials were also punished in the past few months, the Unification Ministry said, although they escaped execution.









Kim Yong Chol, the head of North Korea's United Front Department, received "revolutionary punishment" at a rural farm, or hard labor, between mid-July and mid-August.
The United Front Department is the government body which manages dialogue and policies with South Korea.
He was accused of abuse of power, including "an overbearing manner and forceful push to strengthening authority into (the) Party's United Front Department," the South Korean official said. He is expected to return to his post. Choe Hwi, a senior official with the Propaganda and Agitation Department of the Worker's Party, was also punished and has been undergoing "revolutionary re-education" in a rural area since late May, the South Korean official said.
Executions are widely considered a political tool for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to consolidate his hold on power.
In May 2015, the country's defense minister, Hyon Yong-chol, was reportedly killed with an anti-aircraft gun after being accused of treason.
South Korean news reports the death of Hyon Yong Chol
Two years earlier, Kim's uncle, Jang Song-thaek, was executed after being branded a "traitor for all ages."
Kim's executed uncle Jang Song Thaek

Is blogging about beheading FBI agents a criminal threat or free speech?

Los Angeles (CNN)  Hunched over the keyboard of his computer in a mobile home park a few miles from Disneyland, Peter Ronald Wexler allegedly blogged in support of cop killers and the terror group ISIS, according to authorities. He even "encouraged others to 'level' the Turkish Consulate in LA with a Ryder truck," they said. Following an anonymous tip about his provocative online posts, an FBI supervisor in Los Angeles weighed in on the material.
"Everything we have reviewed to date falls into the category of First Amendment protected speech," Special Agent Voviette D. Morgan wrote in an email dated September 7, 2015. That would all change a day later when agents showed up at Wexler's RV to conduct a threat assessment.
Wexler, 50, politely turned agents away at the door. Then he turned to his keyboard: "Is it murder to kill an FBI Pig who knocks on your door without a warrant?" Wexler allegedly wrote in a blog post. "I think not."
A day later he posted "a personal MEMO to David Bowdich," the FBI's top agent in Southern California. "If your [expletive] goons ever show up at my house again," the post read, "my knife will strike the necks."
Wexler has since been charged in a 20-count federal indictment with making criminal threats to harm or kill Bowdich and other agents, including by "cutting their throats and beheading them." He has pleaded not guilty.
His trial, which quietly got underway last week in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, promises to test the limits of what constitutes free speech. The case is expected to go to the jury Wednesday morning.
Following Wexler's arrest, Bowdich went on to become the public face of the FBI in the wake of the San Bernardino terrorist attacks. He has since been promoted to a top job at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Bowdich testified last week that he was told about Wexler's blog posts when he headed up the Los Angeles field office and that he took them seriously. He said he was concerned about his family's safety. In order to win a conviction against Wexler, prosecutors must convince jurors that Wexler's comments were "a serious expression of an intent to physically harm or murder" Bowdich and other agents and that "a reasonable person" would interpret them that way as well.
Wexler's defense attorneys contend that their client is a non-violent satirical blogger whose postings are "core political speech" protected under the First Amendment. The posts about Bowdich and the FBI are taken from among hundreds of entries dealing with topics such as US foreign policy in the Middle East, presidential politics and policing in America and contained strong languages and images throughout.
"If you look at the whole blog, it's obvious this is political satire," defense attorney Caleb Mason said in a recent interview with CNN. "The government has made not one single allegation that Mr. Wexler has ever done a violent thing in his life," co-counsel Marri Derby wrote in court filing.
Mason is a former federal prosecutor who in 2009 won a conviction against a man charged with making threats against then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, only to have the conviction overturned on the basis that his supposedly threatening words were in fact protected free speech.
"This case is no different," he said.
Mason, now in private practice, said he joined Wexler's defense on a pro-bono basis as a matter of principle. Defending Wexler, Mason said in an interview, "is like the ACLU defending the Nazis in Skokie."
Prosecutors have portrayed Wexler as a serious threat not only to Bowdich, but to those investigating him as well. They sought and received special permission to conduct a pre-dawn SWAT raid to arrest him, despite a peaceful encounter weeks earlier, and persuaded a federal judge he posed a continuing danger to the public and should be held without bail prior to trial.
DOCUMENT
PAGES
TEXT
Zoom
The case is being handled by anti-terrorism prosecutors and is being closely watched by supervisors in the Los Angeles US Attorney's office.
Mason and Derby paint a picture of a socially awkward, unemployed systems administrator who takes out his frustration on the keyboard. The defense attorneys hinted at psychiatric problems earlier in the case but ultimately did not proceed with a "diminished capacity" defense.
Wexler created his blog in 2006 and seems to have blogged in relative obscurity for years. He testified that he relied on sarcasm and hyperbole to get his points across and intended to be provocative. But he said none of his posts were intended to convey threats to Bowdich or other agents.
He came to the attention of the FBI following a series of allegedly threatening emails and posts in the summer and fall of 2015.
In July, he wrote that various officials and institutions in Texas ought to be "lit up" in retribution for the death of Sandra Bland, an African-American woman who hanged herself following a minor traffic stop and subsequent arrest.
A month later, he posted a message on the Jacksonville, Florida airport's Facebook page saying the Jacksonville Aviation Authority "needs to be blown out of existence." The message included the Arabic phrase, "Allahu Akbar," meaning "God is great."
Later that month, he emailed staff members at Leavenworth federal prison in Kansas complaining about the treatment of Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, an American soldier convicted of espionage. He wrote that Manning's treatment "requires revenge" and directed "ISIS Throat Slitters" to a beach near Camp Pendleton frequented by Marines and their families.
"It is the perfect place to go and slit many throats," Wexler wrote.
On September 6, the FBI received the anonymous tip that prompted agent's Morgan's review of his blog and the visit to his home.
All of the counts charged in the indictment stem from a tirade of posts made in the wake of that visit.
He told agents on his blog not to bother him again "unless you're looking for a Left-Handed Shave with my kitchen knife, a Schrade SCHF9, whch can chop down a tree and perfectly slice a juicy red, vine-ripened tomato, in that order!"
[The left-handed reference apparently applies to "Jihadi John," an ISIS executioner who appears in several Internet beheading videos.]
Wexler singled out Bowdich who, he wrote, should be "shot in the back!"
"That [expletive] just got under my skin, and my trigger finger is suddenly getting very itchy."
The postings included a photo of Bowdich's head placed in the crosshairs of a rifle scope and superimposed onto the bodies of ISIS beheading victims.
Two and a half weeks after their initial visit to Wexler's RV, agents armed with a search warrant descended on the location before dawn. Members of the bureau's SWAT team deployed a "flash bang grenade" as diversion and attempted to pry open the RV's windshield.
A sleeping Wexler was arrested without incident.
During the September 25 raid, they discovered the same knife mentioned in his post and found Google searches to determine the precise location where Bowdich worked, prosecutors allege.
They've introduced the knife, found along with other cooking implements in a drawer near the RV's kitchen, as evidence at trial in an attempt to show that Wexler had the means to carry out the attack.
But an email from one FBI case agent to another turned over to defense attorneys suggests that agent was not taking the threat as seriously as prosecutors.
The message from agent Mark R. Espiritu was an apparent reference to Wexler's post about his kinfe's ability to slice through vine-ripened tomatoes.
"Hey bro," the September 8 email read, "it'd be funny if we showed up with tomatoes for our next visit. Or even just left one on his door step."
Prosecutors dismissed the exchange as a joke intended to diffuse tension in a stressful situation.
Obtaining a conviction in what's known as a "pure speech" case can be difficult. Mason, the former prosecutor now representing Wexler, thought he had done so in the case of the United States v. Bagdasarian.
Walter Bagdasarian referred to then-Sen. Obama with racial slurs in online posts during the 2008 presidential campaign and wrote that "he will have a .50 cal in the head soon." Secret Service agents searched Bagdasarian's house and found guns, including a .50 caliber rifle. He was convicted of criminal threats against Obama and sentenced to time served.
Two years later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction. The court ruled that Bagdasarian's statement was not a "true threat" to Obama and that his speech however unpleasant -- was protected by the first amendment. Mason, who was part of team of prosecutor in the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego, said he believed Bagdasarian was guilty at the time.
But he said the court's reversal created new case law that would bar him from prosecuting the case today. Mason did not seek to defend Wexler's views, only his constitutional right to express them. "Is all of this nasty, offensive? Yes, for sure," he told jurors during closing arguments. "But it is not a crime."
Assistant US Attorney Melissa Mills told the jury the limits of Wexler's free speech ended with Bowdich's and the other agents' rights to feel safe.
"Threats are not protected by the Constitution," she said.

Washington's Syrian headache: Keeping Turkey and Kurds apart

Gaziantep, Turkey (CNN)   Sometimes when a complex mess suffers an added complication, it can in fact make matters simpler such is the case in northern Syria now. For months, US support for the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a predominantly Syrian Kurd force that also includes Arab tribes and other factions, has led them to take large swathes of territory from ISIS quite effectively and establish Kurdish control over the territory.
    But there's always been one problem: that territory is along the Turkish border and Turkey considers the SDF's main component, a Syrian Kurdish militia called the People's Protection Units or YPG to be terrorists.
    For months the "what if" of Turkey's eventual reaction to these Kurdish successes has hung in the air, a potentially huge complication for US policy here, given that the US backs both sides. It's safe to say Ankara would oppose a de-facto Kurdish state springing up along its border -- and intervene. Last week, things got a little clearer. Turkey did intervene, using the second largest army in the NATO alliance to back up Sunni Arab Syrian rebels, as they moved to take the Syrian border town of Jarablus from ISIS, almost without a fight.
    But it did not stop there.
    The same forces moved west along the border, expanding the valuable frontier territory now controlled by their Syrian rebel proxies. They also moved south, and ran, inevitably, into the US-backed Syrian Kurdish forces. The mainly Sunni Arab rebels consider this area theirs; and the Kurds view it as land they have fought hard for. With the Syrian Kurds being terrorists in Turkey's eyes, this is never likely to end well.

    Caught in the middle

    As we have seen before with the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Washington hoped they could draw a "red line" not to be crossed and all would be well. Vice President Joe Biden told the Kurds they would have to stay east of the Euphrates river, and withdraw from the Syrian town of Manbij -- which was retaken from ISIS with US assistance. The river provides a clear geographical boundary, running north to south, between areas the Kurds have controlled for a while, and fresh territory regained from ISIS.
    The Pentagon said Sunday they thought that withdrawal east was happening. But, as of now, it is not. Instead, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter was left Monday to ask the Turkish not to fight the Syrian Kurds, and for the Syrian Kurds to pull back across the Euphrates. This, essentially, was like asking two sets of allies to disobey their instinctive impulses.
    As of Tuesday, there was still no clear sign the Kurds were moving east. And on Wednesday Turkey's EU Minister Omer Celik denied that a ceasefire agreement had been reached between Turkish-backed rebels and Kurdish rebel groups following reports of clashes, state-run Anadolu reported.
    But this American balancing act between the two sides is unlikely to last long. The Syrian Kurds don't have the manpower to take on the full might of the Turkish military. They also won't want to irritate their American backers to the point where Washington is forced to abandon them (and their priceless airpower) in an attempt to save its fragile relationship with Turkey.
    There is a basic logic to this. US policy in Syria would be at a total loss without Turkish support. They need Ankara's blessing for resupply lines to their special forces and allied rebels all over Syria. They need it for airbases to launch anti-ISIS strikes from. They can't genuinely believe any long-term solution for Syria is possible without Turkey, its NATO ally, being on board.

    Friend or foe?

    How far will Turkey go?

    The Euphrates seems a sensible, obvious demarcation line. It would allow the Syrian Kurds to save face, and keep a hold of the strategically important city of Kobani and a large swathe of northern parts of Syria. It would allow the Turks to create a buffer zone in northern Syria, focus on kicking ISIS out of other key towns like al-Bab, and let the Syrian Sunni rebels they back run a large chunk of the border region.
    Turkey has the second-largest military in NATO
    This is something that has oddly been a key tenet of US policy for a long time that it has resolutely failed to achieve in Syria: to establish a functional, Sunni Arab rebel force in the north. The US hoped they could represent the interests of the millions of disenfranchised Syrian Sunnis who've been kicked around and bombed since the war began. Some were so desperate and angry about their situation they initially viewed ISIS as liberators.
    This Sunni Arab bulwark is what the US has long sought too, to take on ISIS. You cannot send Syrian Kurdish forces to clear ISIS from Sunni Arab towns and expect a happy outcome. For future stability, the Syrian rebels Turkey is backing offer a better alternative to fight ISIS than the US's current anti-ISIS ground force the Syrian Kurds.
    So here we are, with months of uncertainty swept away. Turkey wants the Kurds to move back, so does Washington. America wants the Turkish to leave the Kurds alone and fight ISIS. ISIS are on the back-foot and have regardless of the white noise of Turk versus Kurd just lost control of the border town they badly needed to resupply themselves.
    It's now clear who wants what, and relatively clear who is doing what, and who is not. This could herald an opportunity, a golden moment in which Turkey helps Sunni Arabs back on their feet again in Syria, while Syrian-Kurdish territorial ambition gets a reality check.
    Except, sadly, this is Syria, where any sense of clarity is quickly overcome by further animosity and chaos where anything decent is eviscerated.

    US flight makes emergency landing in Ireland; 12 sent to hospital

    (CNN)   Severe turbulence rocked a Houston-to-London flight over the Atlantic, forcing its pilots to make an emergency landing in Ireland early Wednesday and sending 12 people to a hospital a flight one passenger called the most disturbing he'd taken in decades.
    United Airlines Flight 880 landed unscheduled at western Ireland's Shannon Airport shortly before 6 a.m. local time so that people could receive medical treatment after "severe and unexpected turbulence," the airline said.
      The shaking began overnight about halfway over the Atlantic while many passengers were asleep, followed by "four very, very severe drops in altitude," passenger Gregory Giagnocavo told CNN after landing in Ireland.
      "It was the most frightening and disturbing flight I've been on in 30 years," Giagnocavo said.

      Three children among the injured

      The Boeing 767-300 was carrying 207 passengers and 13 crew members. After it landed, 10 passengers and two flight attendants were taken to a hospital, United said.
      Three children were among them, University Hospital Limerick said. The 12 were treated primarily for soft tissue injuries, minor head injuries and lacerations, the hospital said. By late Wednesday morning, only a flight attendant remained in the hospital, according to the airline. The plane resumed its flight to Heathrow at 12:11 p.m. (7:11 a.m. ET).

      'Babies crying'

      Giagnocavo said the scene on the plane was "pure chaos" before the emergency landing. "(A) flight attendant was cut on the side of her head, and blood was running down her arm," he said. "Babies crying -- and quite a few people very shook up. Loose things seem to be everywhere.
      "Fortunately it occurred when most people were sleeping, so most people were in their seats with seat belts on." United Airlines "is providing care and support to customers and crew of flight UA880," airline spokeswoman Erin Benson said.

      French towns maintain burkini bans despite court rulings

      Cannes, France (CNN)   Twenty-two towns in France are maintaining a ban on the burkini despite court rulings that have said mayors have no legal right to dictate what women wear on the beach. More than 30 towns initially had imposed a ban on the swimwear, which covers the body from head to toe, leaving only the face, hands and feet exposed. French courts have already ruled that mayors in Villeneuve-Loubet and Cannes, among others, had no legal right to impose such dress codes. Bans in other cities also face challenges in court, one by one.
        Burkini ban suspended by French court
        Burkini ban suspended by French court 01:18
        The burkini is worn mostly by Muslim women, and officials say the bans are a response to growing terror concerns after a series of attacks, including one last month in Nice that left 86 dead when a man drove a truck through a crowd celebrating Bastille Day.

        National Front's Le Pen says burkini 'like a prison'

        The bans and images of armed police forcing a woman to remove part of her burkini on a beach in Nice  have been highly divisive in a country that celebrates secularism and have fueled a debate here and abroad. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said at a rally Monday that bare breasts represented France better than the Islamic headscarf, according to reports, triggering a storm of criticism on social media.
        Cannes and the town of Frejus had to suspend their bans after court rulings Tuesday. Frejus, southwest of Cannes, is a stronghold for the right-wing National Front party, which has long expressed concern over what it calls the Islamization of France and has opposed the burka.
        The party's leader, Marine Le Pen, told CNN's Hala Gorani in an interview Wednesday that she supported a national law to ban all forms of "ostentatious" religious symbols, including burkinis and headscarves, in public. The burkini is "like a prison," Le Pen said, calling it a "fundamentalist uniform."
        "The burkini is actually a symptom, one of the multiple symptoms, of the rise in fundamentalist Islam in France for many years," she said. "It's like people saying, 'We in the Muslim community' and not all think this way 'we want to eat differently and we want to live differently, we want to dress differently and we want to apply our own laws.' "

        "What are they doing wrong?'

        Sefen Guez Guez, an attorney for the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, which brought the Frejus case to court, said he had confirmed at least 10 instances where the ban had been enforced five in Nice and five in Cannes maintaining that the bans were political rhetoric aimed at winning elections, rather than a security precaution or a way to reduce tensions. "We are in France, in the country of freedom, the country of liberty of speech. So we have to accept that a woman can (decide) for herself what she can wear," he told CNN.
        French court suspends burkini ban

        French court suspends burkini ban 01:44
        Opinion on the beaches of southern France have remained divided. Delphine Ortise told CNN on the beach in Villeneuve-Loubet, near Nice, that she has noticed a rise in the number of burkinis. "It's new in France, and for me it must be forbidden," she said. Amar Boujemann, who also was on the beach, said France represented a life of freedom and that the women in burkinis should be left alone.
        "What are they doing wrong? They are not harming anyone, there are other things more important in the world than to all the time be thinking about burkinis," he said. Another woman said she found it abnormal to see women covered up on the beach, calling it a display of religion "in the radical form."
        "If they weren't influenced by their husbands, they would be able to express themselves how they want to," said Brigitte, who would only give her first name. But Morgan Galawi, a Muslim from Nice, said the bans had made Muslim women feel excluded.
        "If I want to go to the beach with my friend, to simply go to the beach to have a picnic or just to spend some time there without swimming, I can't do that," she said. "Because we feel excluded and we have the impression that we aren't at home. I was born in Nice, and this should not happen. And it's my choice to wear the headscarf."
        In April 2011, France became the first European country to ban wearing in public the burqa, a full-body covering that includes a mesh over the face, and the niqab, a full-face veil with an opening for the eyes. And much like the recent burkini bans, opinion in the country is divided between those who see the laws as an infringement on religious freedom, and those who view the Islamic dress as inconsistent with France's rigorously enforced secularism.