World reacts to overnight strikes on Syria by US, UK and French forces
Iran and Russia condemn attack but support comes from allies including Canada and Israel
Hannah Ellis-Petersen and Peter Beaumont
Sat 14 Apr 2018 21.08 AEST
Syrians in Damascus wave Iranian, Russian and Syrian flags during a protest against US-led air strikes
Syrians in Damascus wave Iranian, Russian and Syrian flags during a protest against US-led air strikes. Photograph: Omar Sanadiki/Reuters
The decision by the US president, Donald Trump, to launch air strikes on Syria with backing from the UK and France has proved globally divisive, with some countries praising the military action while others condemned it as provocative and unacceptable.
Among the strongest critics of the airstrikes were Russia and Iran, staunch allies of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, who both have a military presence on the ground in Syria.
Russia
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, denounced the strikes as an “act of aggression” that would exacerbate humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.
In a statement issued by the Kremlin, the Russian leader said Moscow was calling an emergency meeting of the United Nations security council over the strikes launched by the US, Britain and France.
Putin added that the attack had a “destructive influence on the entire system of international relations”.
Iran
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called the US-led strikes on Syria a “military crime”. According to state news agency IRNA, Khamenei spoke at a meeting with Iranian officials and ambassadors from some Islamic countries.
“The attack this morning against Syria is a crime,” Khamenei added later on his Telegram channel. “The American president, the French president and the British prime minister are criminals, they will gain nothing from it.”
Germany
Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, said the allied strikes in Syria were a “necessary and appropriate” response to what the US and its allies say was a recent chemical attack in the Syrian city of Douma.
Merkel said Berlin viewed the US, UK and France had taken “responsibility in this way as permanent members of the UN security council ... to maintain the effectiveness of the international rejection of chemical weapons use and to warn the Syrian regime against further violations”.
China
Advertisement
In a response to questions about the strikes, China’s foreign ministry called any military action that bypasses the UN security council a violation of international law.
“We consistently oppose the use of force in international relations, and advocate respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said in a statement.
“China believes that a political solution is the only realistic way out for the Syrian issue,” she added. “China urges all the relevant parties to return to the framework of international law and to resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation.”
European Union
The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, said those who rely on chemical warfare must be held to account by the world.
Juncker said the suspected use of poison gas last week in the Syrian city of Douma was as he puts it a “heinous chemical weapons attack carried out by the Syrian regime”. He said the world “has the responsibility to identify and hold accountable those responsible” for the attack.
Canada
Syria latest: Theresa May calls strikes 'right and legal' – live updates
Read more
The Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, who this week ruled out his country’s participation in military action in Syria, announced his unequivocal support for the targeted bombings.
“Canada supports the decision by the United States, the United Kingdom and France to take action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against its own people,” he said. Trudeau added that Canada would continue to investigate the use of chemical weapons in Syria and that those responsible for the recent attacks “must be brought to justice”.
Israel
Israel, which was recently accused by Iran of carrying out its own airstrikes on military bases in Syria, was among the first to praise the strikes.
“Last year, President Trump made clear that the use of chemical weapons crosses a red line. Tonight, under American leadership, the United States, France and the United Kingdom enforced that line.”
Nato
The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said the actions by the US, France and UK coalition should be supported because they would “reduce the government’s ability to further attack the people of Syria with chemical weapons”.
“Nato has consistently condemned Syria’s continued use of chemical weapons as a clear breach of international norms and agreements,” he said. “The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and those responsible must be held accountable.”
Turkey
Turkey’s foreign ministry said it welcomed the strikes as an “appropriate response”.
Ankara said chemical weapons attacks that indiscriminately target civilians “constitute crimes against humanity” and should not go unpunished.
United Nations
UN secretary- general, António Guterres, said that while use of chemical weapons was “abhorrent” and “horrendous”, he urged caution in retaliating, expressing concern that any escalation of the violence would only increase the suffering of those living in Syria.
“I urge all member states to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances and to avoid any acts that could escalate the situation and worsen the suffering of the Syrian people,” Guterres said in a statement.
Iraq
The strikes carried out by the US, France and Britain against Syrian military targets could give terrorism an opportunity to expand in the region, the Iraqi foreign ministry said, calling the raids “a very dangerous development”.
“Such action could have dangerous consequences, threatening the security and stability of the region and giving terrorism another opportunity to expand after it was ousted from Iraq and forced into Syria to retreat to a large extent,” it said.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
Cambridge Analytica may have had access to private Facebook Messenger messages - Snapzu Word News
April 10, 2018
Cambridge Analytica may have had access to private Facebook Messenger messages
Roughly 1,500 users gave access to their messages
By Chaim Gartenberg@cgartenberg Apr 10, 2018, 1:19pm EDT
Facebook has started to help users figure out whether or not they’ve been affected by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and detailed in the company’s notification is the fact that Facebook users may have also had their private messages leaked to Cambridge Analytica.
As pointed out by researcher Jonathan Albright, the vulnerability dates back to the first version of Facebook’s Graph API, which allowed apps to request massive amounts of users’ friends info with a single prompt. Once permission was granted, apps — like Cambridge Analytica — could continue to pull data for years until either the app was deleted or when Facebook finally killed the 1.0 version of the Graph API for a more limited 2.0 version in 2015.
Included in the data that those early Graph API apps could pull was the ability to read users’ private Facebook messages through a “read_mailbox” API request.
Facebook confirmed to Wired that a relatively small number of Facebook users gave access to Messenger — only 1,500 people gave the “This Is Your Digital Life” app permission to access the data, but anyone who messaged or received messages from those 1,500 people could also potentially be impacted.
Update April 10, 2:55pm: Cambridge Analytica has denied that it had access to private message data.
Cambridge Analytica
✔
@CamAnalytica
GSR did not share the content of any private messages with Cambridge Analytica or SCL Elections. Neither company has ever handled such data.
4:03 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Cambridge Analytica may have had access to private Facebook Messenger messages
Roughly 1,500 users gave access to their messages
By Chaim Gartenberg@cgartenberg Apr 10, 2018, 1:19pm EDT
Facebook has started to help users figure out whether or not they’ve been affected by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and detailed in the company’s notification is the fact that Facebook users may have also had their private messages leaked to Cambridge Analytica.
As pointed out by researcher Jonathan Albright, the vulnerability dates back to the first version of Facebook’s Graph API, which allowed apps to request massive amounts of users’ friends info with a single prompt. Once permission was granted, apps — like Cambridge Analytica — could continue to pull data for years until either the app was deleted or when Facebook finally killed the 1.0 version of the Graph API for a more limited 2.0 version in 2015.
Included in the data that those early Graph API apps could pull was the ability to read users’ private Facebook messages through a “read_mailbox” API request.
Facebook confirmed to Wired that a relatively small number of Facebook users gave access to Messenger — only 1,500 people gave the “This Is Your Digital Life” app permission to access the data, but anyone who messaged or received messages from those 1,500 people could also potentially be impacted.
Update April 10, 2:55pm: Cambridge Analytica has denied that it had access to private message data.
Cambridge Analytica
✔
@CamAnalytica
GSR did not share the content of any private messages with Cambridge Analytica or SCL Elections. Neither company has ever handled such data.
4:03 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Oligarch Vladimir Potanin on money, power and Putin - Financial Times
April 13, 2018
Oligarch Vladimir Potanin on money, power and Putin
One of Russia’s first post-Soviet tycoons on the art of survival in Moscow
Henry Foy
Any respectable evil mastermind needs a lair. A castle to revel in victories, a fortress to scheme anew. Or, in Vladimir Potanin’s case, a place to ski and play ice-hockey, and dream of redemption and a world where he is no longer cast as corporate Russia’s original villain.
In the saga of Russia’s metamorphosis from state-controlled socialism to capitalism, the heavy-set tycoon is seen by many as the high priest of oligarchy who paved the way for today’s society of a few hundred super-wealthy haves and tens of millions of have-nots: a democracy in name only, with the rich pulling the strings and the rest wondering what might have been.
An hour’s drive west of Moscow, in a private country club that he built in a wooded valley, I find a man resigned to this bleak caricature but striving to rewrite his own history. “I hide myself away here,” he says as we stroll down a tree-lined path to the granite-and-timber restaurant. “From everybody.”
Potanin’s imposing physicality is tempered by his relaxed demeanour. He is dressed in jeans and a casual blazer over a navy shirt and tie. Our conversation is never too far from laughter. But the smiles mask one of corporate Russia’s sharper minds. In 1995, four years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the civil servant turned entrepreneur instigated the controversial “loans for shares” scheme in which President Boris Yeltsin handed over stakes in some of Russia’s most valuable natural resource assets for bank loans to plug the country’s debts and for financial support for his faltering re-election campaign.
Yeltsin held on to the Kremlin, the indebted state got cash and a year later Potanin’s cabal of seven Moscow businessmen who had issued the loans re-sold the shares to themselves for bargain prices in rigged auctions. Potanin’s prize was a 38 per cent stake in metals and mining colossus Norilsk Nickel for just $170.1m. When we met, that stake was worth $11.2bn — although since the imposition of new US sanctions against Russia and this week’s market turmoil, it has shrunk to $9.4bn.
In the complicated journey that led to today’s Russia of oligarchs, inequality and graft, many citizens perceive “loans for shares” as the original sin: state plunder that forever tainted its future. Potanin has built a $15.6bn fortune — the sixth-largest in Russia and 83rd in the world — but it carries a stain. Many Russians will never forgive him. And yet he is also one of Russia’s great corporate survivors. Of the seven original oligarchs, he is one of only two still welcome in Moscow. There are very few who amassed wealth and influence before Vladimir Putin rose to power and who still possess both.
“I have been involved from the very beginning. It has been a very interesting life,” he says. “Yes, I am a survivor, as you can see. And you want to ask me why.”
First we must order. We are sitting by the window in a completely empty restaurant with the elderly maître d’ poised in the corner. Potanin recommends the dorada, which I choose, with a trio of fish tartares to start. He follows suit, and the francophone who holidays in Antibes picks a bottle of white burgundy.
Born in 1961 into the nomenklatura, Potanin studied to follow his father into the USSR’s trade ministry, with the prospect of glamorous overseas postings. But after seven years in the state trade agency, he quit in 1990 to take advantage of Mikhail Gorbachev’s relaxation of the rules on private enterprises. Setting up Interros that year, with $10,000 of borrowed capital, he began competing with his ex-employer.
“The problem with Soviet people is our country was like a cell. We were cut off,” he explains. “And then we became suddenly open . . . Those who had appetite for risks and understanding and skills of course had an advantage.”
Five years later, in a move that would shape Russia’s future, he convinced the Kremlin to back his “loans for shares” scheme, selecting some of the country’s most valuable natural resources assets as collateral for loans that both the bankers and the politicians knew would not be paid back. As the tartares arrive, I ask how he feels to be immortalised as the scheme’s mastermind.
“It is the biggest PR tragedy of my career,” he says. “Of course, the privatisation process has to be transparent. And in our case it was not. My plan was different. I wanted to privatise the companies with banks and qualified people, raise their value, and then sell them.
“The choice was not between being fair and open or creating oligarchs. It was whether to leave these companies in the hands of [former Soviet] red directors and forget efficiency forever, or sell them in any way possible.”
Potanin is animated, gesturing with his hands as he defends his scheme as a necessary step to avoid economic stagnation. There is a long pause when I interrupt to ask when he realised that he could make a fortune by manipulating the auctions and walking away with the shares for a fraction of their value.
“Yes, it made me incredibly rich,” he says, glancing out over a frozen lake. “Everybody knows I won control of 38 per cent of Norilsk in loans for shares, cheap.” The last word drips with condescension. “There is a certain unfairness in treating those deals as evil. It was more complicated than that. I cannot rewrite history. Maybe,” — he corrects himself — “OK certainly, it was my mistake, my PR disaster. I did not manage to explain all those things back then.
“When people come from a totally closed system to openness; from a planned economy to a market economy; from a powerful state to a state in difficulties, there is no place for fairness.”
In one sense, he is right. Russia’s economy in the 1990s was semi-lawless and desperate for private enterprise. Regardless of how he acquired control, his management has made Norilsk into one of the world’s most profitable miners. But it is hard to feel sorry for a billionaire, sitting in the grounds of his private country club, looking out over his ski slope, who gained his wealth in a flawed privatisation designed and run by those who benefited.
“I don’t care when people call me an oligarch,” he says, looking straight at me. “I have enough self-respect to know I do the right things.
“We lived for many centuries without private property in a paternalist state. So while everybody now wants a car, a flat, jewellery, they also think you should not own a factory. And this is wrong. Public opinion is like a natural disaster. You cannot manage it. It starts raining, and well, you get wet.”
The tartares (a little dry and flavourless) are cleared away, and I challenge Potanin on the second criticism of the oligarchs: that their wealth made them masters of Russia’s politicians. Boris Berezovsky, who also took part in loans for shares, once boasted to the FT that he, Potanin and the other five oligarchs controlled 50 per cent of the economy.
“Some people like attention and to appear bigger than they are,” Potanin responds, with a sip of his wine.
“Look,” he says, speaking very carefully. “I always felt smart enough and have good connections to bring my ideas to decision makers. But I have never felt I could push them through.”
Berezovsky’s boast came back to haunt the septet, after Putin replaced Yeltsin and cracked down on the oligarchs. The oil and media tycoon fled to London in 2000 and died in suspicious circumstances in 2013. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was imprisoned in 2003 for 10 years and now lives in exile. Three others were investigated for financial crimes and left Russia. Only Mikhail Fridman, a $14.5bn banking, retail and telecoms tycoon, has also prospered.
“Why did we survive, Fridman and myself? Maybe because we never tried to dictate to the government, to the Kremlin,” he says. He recalls a meeting where he and Fridman told Khodorkovsky, “Mikhail, the problem is you are trying to play political games. The perception is you are trying to buy power. It is unacceptable, not just for you but for all of us — we will all look dangerous.”
In 1996, Potanin served as deputy prime minister for seven months, an aborted experience that made him wary of politics. “I am a normal human being; everyone is attracted to power. But this time as deputy prime minister, while I enjoyed it, was a vaccination against power . . . I understood that you can never convert your business power into political power. If you try, you will die.”
We are interrupted by the arrival of the dorada. The fillet, poached inside layers of leek, is delicious. The man certainly knows his own menu.
Before lunch, Potanin had shown me his ice-hockey rink, where he plays at least twice a week. In dozens of cabinets filled with framed photographs of the oligarch playing with ex-pros and fellow power brokers, I spotted one of him and Putin, another ice-hockey aficionado. When I asked him who is the better player, he smiled: “I am younger.”
“To be close and to support — these are different,” he says. “I have never been that close to Putin, but it doesn’t mean I support him less than his personal friends,” he says. “You don’t need to be close to the president to be a patriot.”
Yet during Putin’s 18-year rule, a new breed of oligarchs has emerged, whose wealth depends on their loyalty.
“Putin likes controlling things. He does not like to not be in the loop,” he says. “He likes details, he likes to know how things work. But that does not mean you have to come for his approval before taking any steps.”
According to Russia’s constitution, Putin’s new six-year term will be his last. I ask Potanin if he worries that a recent spate of clashes between billionaires heralds a period of fighting for control.
“Stability is really important for Russia,” he says. “What is important for Putin is how he creates a programme for future years.”
Succession? I prompt, but the wily veteran sidesteps my question. “Putin is smart enough to understand how things work, and how to make them continue working. I don’t know how he will solve this, and I am not close enough to discuss it . . . But he knows the drill and he knows that his biggest legacy would be to ensure stability and continuity.
“It is for business, too . . . I hope and I believe that he will not allow this kind of turbulence between different groups. I think he knows how to handle this.”
When I mention his inclusion on the US’s “Kremlin list” of politically connected Russians who could face sanctions, his face drops. “The Kremlin list is just a sheet of paper,” he says. “I am Russian. I am with my country, whatever happens. So lists, sanctions, whatever you guys think is necessary, do it. I stand by my country. [But] it is a pity this sentiment of co-operation between new Russia and the rest of the world has been lost.
“Look, tolerance is something Europeans are famous for,” he says. “But the speed and sharpness with which this tolerance disappeared is a bit strange . . . The world is not perfect. And if you think you are the only one who is perfect, then you are wrong.”
This sense of unfair discrimination surfaces throughout our lunch. Potanin is resigned to his oligarch caricature, but is frustrated at not being given a fair opportunity to redefine his narrative.
“When you do something in your life, the more you do, the more rumours, the more information around your activity you create. And in my case, it is always not positive, especially when we talk about the 1990s,” he sighs. “I can leave it behind. I can do nothing, say look, fine, I live the life I live, forget public opinion, and hide in this country club.”
In this context, I see our surroundings not as the lair of a corporate mastermind who outsmarted his way to a fortune, but more as the hideaway of a man who fears he will forever be castigated.
Still, Potanin is trying to rebrand himself. He gave $2.5bn of his own money to build a ski resort in Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics, and is Russia’s only signatory of the Giving Pledge, promising to donate at least half his wealth to charity. His foundation supports huge educational and cultural programmes in Russia, and he was awarded France’s Légion d’honneur last year after donating a collection of Soviet and Russian art to the Pompidou Centre. But Potanin’s principal attempt to forge a legacy is his work in cleaning up Norilsk, the city that gives his mining company its name.
I am a normal human being; everyone is attracted to power . . . But you can never convert business power into political power. If you try, you will die
Deep in the Arctic Circle and accessible only by plane or boat, Norilsk was formed as part of Stalin’s network of prison camps. Tens of thousands of prisoners died building the mines and factories still used today. Built with no regard for the environment, a decade ago it was named as the world’s most polluted city. Potanin is spending $2.5bn to fix that.
“I am saying out loud to the entire world that by 2023, this will be solved and Norilsk will become a normal place to live. If you cannot change the written story, you need to write new stories, to rebalance the situation. And since I have enough money, energy and skills, I can create new stories. Russian society has a very limited faith in businessmen to serve their country,” he says. “I want them to see I am paying back. But I cannot blame them for having hard feelings about guys who are rich and do not have their difficulties . . . I have chosen a certain destiny. And I am a happy man.”
The sun is setting on the snow outside, the wine bottle is empty. Potanin checks his Ulysse Nardin watch: we have talked for three hours. As I motion to the waiter, Potanin returns to forgiveness.
“Russia is unlucky with timing. Everything that happened 150, 200 years ago in other countries is happening here as we speak. You guys had your civil wars in long-ago centuries. The last murder of your king was in 1649. We killed our Nicholas II 100 years ago.
“Maybe this is why it is so difficult for the western world to understand Russia. I return to this word: tolerance. You guys finished with certain issues many centuries ago. We are living through them. Mine is a generation born in the Soviet Union, and you do not understand what that means. You are asking from us certain behaviour. But we were born in a concentration camp. Do you really expect from us behaviour of kids born in London? When you guys are teaching us, be careful, be polite.”
I wave away a bill for my food only and ask to pay for the entire meal. The incredulous waiter looks in panic at Potanin, who breaks into peals of laughter. Finally, I am allowed to pay for the billionaire’s lunch in his own restaurant.
Only on the drive back to Moscow do I realise that he had left the $150 bottle of wine off the bill. A charitable gift from the repentant oligarch.
Henry Foy is an FT correspondent in Moscow
Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Can't Pass a Basic Test of Financial Literacy - TIME ( source : Fortune.com )
Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Can't Pass a Basic Test of Financial Literacy
By MADELINE FARBER / FORTUNE July 12, 2016
Quick: If you take out a $1000 loan that has a 20% rate, how much will you owe a year in interest?
Answer: $200. But if you got that wrong, you’re not alone. Nearly two thirds of Americans can’t calculate interest payments correctly, according to a new study. About a third said they didn’t even know how.
One of the silver linings of the financial crisis was that it was supposed to have taught many Americans a lesson, albeit painful, about the dangers of debt, and financial issues in general. Apparently, the message, though, didn’t get across.
(Gifts: The 100 Most Influential Images of All Time)
All told, a new study, which was released today, estimated that nearly two-thirds of Americans couldn’t pass a basic financial literacy test, meaning they got fewer than four answers correct on a five-question quiz. Worse, the percentage of those who can pass the test has fallen consistently since the financial crisis to 37% last year, from 42% in 2009.
Play Video
These findings come from the National Capability Study by the FINRA Foundation, which surveyed 27,564 Americans, from June through October of last year. FINRA in an quasi-government organization that regulates brokers and Wall Street.
Bonds presented one of the biggest problems for respondents of the survey. Just 28% knew what happens to bond prices when interest rates fall. (They rise.) And less than half of all Americans appear to be able to answer basic questions about financial risk.
Beyond financial literacy, the study found that many Americans have recovered from the financial crisis. Respondents to the survey who reported no difficulty in covering monthly expenses and bills increased 12 percentage points, to 48% in 2015 from 36% in 2009. The percentage of respondents with emergency funds has increased to 46% from 35% in the same years. Additionally, more than half of those using credit cards reported that they pay off their balance each month—the highest percentage since the survey began, the study found.
However, the study also showed that even eight years after the financial crisis, significant segments of the population, including African-Americans, Hispanics, women, Millennials, and people lacking a high school education—so a lot of people—are still worse off then before the recession.
Women are more likely to put off medical services like seeing a doctor, buying prescriptions, or undergoing a medical procedure due to cost. This leaves more than one in five Americans, or 21%, with unpaid medical debt, according to the study.
As for minorities, 39% of blacks and 34% of Latinos have used such high-cost forms of borrowing as pawn shops and payday loans, compared with 21% of whites and 21% of Asians.
And unlike their predecessors, 29% of Millennials, who are 18 to 34, said they had been tardy paying their mortgage, vs. 16% of those ages 35 to 54. And 45% of all respondents with no college education said that if they had an emergency requiring them to pull together $2,000 within a month, they wouldn’t be able to do so.
(Gifts: The 100 Most Influential Images of All Time)
“This research underscores the critical need for innovative strategies to equip consumers with the tools and education required to effectively manage their financial lives,” said FINRA Foundation Chairman Richard Ketchum in a press release. “My hope is that policymakers, researchers, and advocates will use these findings to make more informed decisions about how to best reach underserved populations.”
Despite the overall rebound from the Great Recession, Deutsche Bank says there’s a 60% chance the U.S. is headed back into a recession, partly due to the fact that the difference between yields for long-term and short-term bonds has been shrinking.
As for women, Fortune previously reported that although the increase in the number of women employed has pushed down the female unemployment rate, joblessness among women overall is higher than what it was in the months leading up to the downturn.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com
By MADELINE FARBER / FORTUNE July 12, 2016
Quick: If you take out a $1000 loan that has a 20% rate, how much will you owe a year in interest?
Answer: $200. But if you got that wrong, you’re not alone. Nearly two thirds of Americans can’t calculate interest payments correctly, according to a new study. About a third said they didn’t even know how.
One of the silver linings of the financial crisis was that it was supposed to have taught many Americans a lesson, albeit painful, about the dangers of debt, and financial issues in general. Apparently, the message, though, didn’t get across.
(Gifts: The 100 Most Influential Images of All Time)
All told, a new study, which was released today, estimated that nearly two-thirds of Americans couldn’t pass a basic financial literacy test, meaning they got fewer than four answers correct on a five-question quiz. Worse, the percentage of those who can pass the test has fallen consistently since the financial crisis to 37% last year, from 42% in 2009.
Play Video
These findings come from the National Capability Study by the FINRA Foundation, which surveyed 27,564 Americans, from June through October of last year. FINRA in an quasi-government organization that regulates brokers and Wall Street.
Bonds presented one of the biggest problems for respondents of the survey. Just 28% knew what happens to bond prices when interest rates fall. (They rise.) And less than half of all Americans appear to be able to answer basic questions about financial risk.
Beyond financial literacy, the study found that many Americans have recovered from the financial crisis. Respondents to the survey who reported no difficulty in covering monthly expenses and bills increased 12 percentage points, to 48% in 2015 from 36% in 2009. The percentage of respondents with emergency funds has increased to 46% from 35% in the same years. Additionally, more than half of those using credit cards reported that they pay off their balance each month—the highest percentage since the survey began, the study found.
However, the study also showed that even eight years after the financial crisis, significant segments of the population, including African-Americans, Hispanics, women, Millennials, and people lacking a high school education—so a lot of people—are still worse off then before the recession.
Women are more likely to put off medical services like seeing a doctor, buying prescriptions, or undergoing a medical procedure due to cost. This leaves more than one in five Americans, or 21%, with unpaid medical debt, according to the study.
As for minorities, 39% of blacks and 34% of Latinos have used such high-cost forms of borrowing as pawn shops and payday loans, compared with 21% of whites and 21% of Asians.
And unlike their predecessors, 29% of Millennials, who are 18 to 34, said they had been tardy paying their mortgage, vs. 16% of those ages 35 to 54. And 45% of all respondents with no college education said that if they had an emergency requiring them to pull together $2,000 within a month, they wouldn’t be able to do so.
(Gifts: The 100 Most Influential Images of All Time)
“This research underscores the critical need for innovative strategies to equip consumers with the tools and education required to effectively manage their financial lives,” said FINRA Foundation Chairman Richard Ketchum in a press release. “My hope is that policymakers, researchers, and advocates will use these findings to make more informed decisions about how to best reach underserved populations.”
Despite the overall rebound from the Great Recession, Deutsche Bank says there’s a 60% chance the U.S. is headed back into a recession, partly due to the fact that the difference between yields for long-term and short-term bonds has been shrinking.
As for women, Fortune previously reported that although the increase in the number of women employed has pushed down the female unemployment rate, joblessness among women overall is higher than what it was in the months leading up to the downturn.
This article originally appeared on Fortune.com
Putin: US-led strikes on Syria 'an act of aggression' - Al Jazeera
April 14, 2018
Putin: US-led strikes on Syria 'an act of aggression'
Moscow and Tehran have warned that there would be consequences for the US-led attacks on Syria.
Putin and Rouhani have warned that there would be consequences for the attacks on Syria
Putin and Rouhani have warned that there would be consequences for the attacks on Syria [File: Alexey Nikolsky/EPA]
What media in Russia, Iran and Syria are saying on Syria strikes
today
Five things to know about the US-led strikes in Syria
today
Analysis: Al Jazeera's Marwan Bishara on the US-led Syria attacks
today
Eastern Ghouta: What happened and why
today
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced a strike on Syria launched by the US and its allies as an "act of aggression" that will exacerbate humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.
In a statement issued by the Kremlin, the Russian leader says Moscow is calling an emergency meeting of the United Nations' Security Council over the strike launched by the US, Britain and France.
Putin added that the strike had a "destructive influence on the entire system of international relations".
He reaffirmed Russia's view that a purported chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma that prompted the strike was a fake.
Putin added that Russian military experts who inspected Douma found no trace of the attack.
He criticised the US and its allies for launching the strike without waiting for inspectors from the international chemical weapons watchdog to visit the area.
Syria chemical attack: Scores killed in Douma, rescuers say
US President Donald Trump ordered the air attacks late on Friday "on targets associated with chemical weapons capabilities".
Russia's ambassador to the US warned that there would be consequences for the attacks.
"A pre-designed scenario is being implemented," Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said on Twitter.
"Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences."
Antov added that it was not acceptable to insult Russia's president: "Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible."
"The US - the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons - has no moral right to blame other countries."
Later on Saturday, the Syrian presidency posted a video that appeared to show President Bashar al-Assad arriving for work hours after the strike.
"The morning of resilience," declared a caption accompanying the video circulated on the presidency's Telegram feed.
"The barbaric aggression ... will not affect in any way the determination and insistence of the Syrian people and their heroic armed forces," state news agency SANA cited an official source in the Syrian foreign ministry as saying.
"This aggression will only lead to inflaming tensions in the world" and threatens international security, the source added.
Iran also warned of "regional consequences" following the attacks.
"The United States and its allies have no proof and, without even waiting for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to take a position, have carried out this military attack... and are responsible for the regional consequences," said foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi on his Telegram channel.
A senior official in a regional alliance that backs Damascus said the Syrian government absorbed the attacks, adding that the targeted sites were evacuated days ago thanks to a warning from Russia.
"We had an early warning of the strike from the Russians ... and all military bases were evacuated a few days ago," the official said.
Around 30 missiles were fired in the attack, and a third of them were shot down, the official added.
"We are carrying out an assessment of the material damages," the official added.
President Assad has been backed in the seven-year-long Syrian war by Russia, Iran, and Iran-backed groups, including Lebanon's Hezbollah.
Explosions were heard in Damascus, Homs and elsewhere in Syria.
A US official told Reuters news agency the attacks were aimed at multiple targets and involved Tomahawk cruise missiles.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA NEWS
Putin: US-led strikes on Syria 'an act of aggression'
Moscow and Tehran have warned that there would be consequences for the US-led attacks on Syria.
Putin and Rouhani have warned that there would be consequences for the attacks on Syria
Putin and Rouhani have warned that there would be consequences for the attacks on Syria [File: Alexey Nikolsky/EPA]
What media in Russia, Iran and Syria are saying on Syria strikes
today
Five things to know about the US-led strikes in Syria
today
Analysis: Al Jazeera's Marwan Bishara on the US-led Syria attacks
today
Eastern Ghouta: What happened and why
today
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced a strike on Syria launched by the US and its allies as an "act of aggression" that will exacerbate humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.
In a statement issued by the Kremlin, the Russian leader says Moscow is calling an emergency meeting of the United Nations' Security Council over the strike launched by the US, Britain and France.
Putin added that the strike had a "destructive influence on the entire system of international relations".
He reaffirmed Russia's view that a purported chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma that prompted the strike was a fake.
Putin added that Russian military experts who inspected Douma found no trace of the attack.
He criticised the US and its allies for launching the strike without waiting for inspectors from the international chemical weapons watchdog to visit the area.
Syria chemical attack: Scores killed in Douma, rescuers say
US President Donald Trump ordered the air attacks late on Friday "on targets associated with chemical weapons capabilities".
Russia's ambassador to the US warned that there would be consequences for the attacks.
"A pre-designed scenario is being implemented," Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov said on Twitter.
"Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences."
Antov added that it was not acceptable to insult Russia's president: "Insulting the President of Russia is unacceptable and inadmissible."
"The US - the possessor of the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons - has no moral right to blame other countries."
Later on Saturday, the Syrian presidency posted a video that appeared to show President Bashar al-Assad arriving for work hours after the strike.
"The morning of resilience," declared a caption accompanying the video circulated on the presidency's Telegram feed.
"The barbaric aggression ... will not affect in any way the determination and insistence of the Syrian people and their heroic armed forces," state news agency SANA cited an official source in the Syrian foreign ministry as saying.
"This aggression will only lead to inflaming tensions in the world" and threatens international security, the source added.
Iran also warned of "regional consequences" following the attacks.
"The United States and its allies have no proof and, without even waiting for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to take a position, have carried out this military attack... and are responsible for the regional consequences," said foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi on his Telegram channel.
A senior official in a regional alliance that backs Damascus said the Syrian government absorbed the attacks, adding that the targeted sites were evacuated days ago thanks to a warning from Russia.
"We had an early warning of the strike from the Russians ... and all military bases were evacuated a few days ago," the official said.
Around 30 missiles were fired in the attack, and a third of them were shot down, the official added.
"We are carrying out an assessment of the material damages," the official added.
President Assad has been backed in the seven-year-long Syrian war by Russia, Iran, and Iran-backed groups, including Lebanon's Hezbollah.
Explosions were heard in Damascus, Homs and elsewhere in Syria.
A US official told Reuters news agency the attacks were aimed at multiple targets and involved Tomahawk cruise missiles.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA NEWS
Trump announces strikes on Syria following suspected chemical weapons attack by Assad forces - NBC News
Trump announces strikes on Syria following suspected chemical weapons attack by Assad forces
"Clearly, the Assad regime did not get the message last year," Defense Secretary Mattis said. "This time, our allies and we have struck harder."
by Daniel Arkin, F. Brinley Bruton and Phil McCausland / Apr.14.2018 / 11:12 AM ET / Updated 9:04 PM ET
The Damascus sky lights up with surface-to-air missile fire as a U.S.-led attack targeted different parts of the Syrian capital early Saturday, April 14, 2018.Hassan Ammar / AP
President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the United States military — in conjunction with France and the United Kingdom — to launch strikes on Syria in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad on a Damascus suburb last week.
The president said the U.S. would aim to hit sites "associated with the chemical weapons capabilities" of Assad's regime.
"We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents," Trump said in remarks from the White House, adding that the U.S. and its allies had "marshaled their righteous power."
President Trump announces precision strikes in Syria
07:39
Trump urged Iran and Russia to withdraw their support for what he called Syria's "barbarism and brutality."
In a direct address to the two countries, he asked, "What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men and women and children?"
Russia, one of Assad's key and uncompromising allies, responded quickly to Friday's attack shortly after the strikes were reported.
President Vladimir Putin denounced the raids as an "act of aggression against a sovereign state" that will make the humanitarian crisis in Syria worse and called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations' Security Council. Putin added that the strike had a "destructive influence on the entire system of international relations."
From Arab Spring to chemical attacks: A timeline of the Syrian conflict and the U.S. response
The suspected nerve agent attack in the city of Douma in eastern Ghouta on April 7 killed dozens of people, including children, local activists have told NBC News. Syria and Russia have denied any involvement in the alleged attack.
On Saturday Putin reaffirmed Russia's view that the purported chemical attack was a fake, criticizing the U.S. and its allies for launching the strike without waiting for inspectors from the international chemical weapons watchdog to visit the area.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said later Saturday that its fact-finding team would continue a planned deployment to Syria to help establish the facts around the suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma.
The airstrikes drew support from the European Union, Germany, Israel and other allies while British Prime Minister Theresa May said reports indicate the Syrian government used a barrel bomb to deliver the chemicals used in an attack on Douma. She said the use of force was "right and legal" in this case.
Meanwhile in Syria, explosions were heard to the east, west and south of Damascus, and witnesses saw blasts surrounding much of the Syrian capital and a huge fire could be seen from a distance to the east. An Associated Press reporter in Damascus said the attacks turned the sky orange.
Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. and its partners launched the attack at 9 p.m. ET and struck multiple targets associated with Syria's chemical weapons program. Those targets included a scientific research center in Damascus, a chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, Syria, and a chemical weapons equipment and military outpost close to the second target.
Dunford explained that the U.S. identified the targets to mitigate collateral damage, civilian casualties and "the risk of Russian forces being involved."
He also said that the U.S. had noticed surface-to-air missile activity from the Assad regime.
Russia's Defense Ministry said out of the 103 missiles fired, 71 were downed — with Syrian air defense systems intercepting most rockets fired.
NBC News could not verify that claim.
At a news conference at the Pentagon after President Trump spoke on Friday night, Defense Secretary James Mattis described the strikes as "a little over double the weapons" used by the Trump administration to carry out a similar attack one year ago. That April 2017 attack consisted of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
"Clearly, the Assad regime did not get the message last year," Mattis said. "This time, our allies and we have struck harder. Together, we have sent a clear message to Assad, and his murderous lieutenants, that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack for which they will be held accountable."
Mattis said the strike was a “single shot” aimed to deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons. Whether the United States and its allies will pursue further action in Syria would “depend on Mr. Assad should he decided to use more chemical weapons in the future," the secretary said.
Mattis also noted his concern that false information would be spread after the U.S. attack.
"Based on recent experience," he said at the conclusion of his remarks, "we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime."
There would be further details in the morning, Mattis and Dunford said.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry, in a statement provided to state-run news agency SANA, said that it "condemns in the strongest possible terms the brutal American-British-French aggression against it" and claimed the timing of the airstrikes "is aimed to impede the work" of chemical weapons inspectors.
The Associated Press reported that hundreds of Syrians gathered at landmark squares in the Syrian capital, honking their car horns, flashing victory signs and waving Syrian flags in scenes of defiance that followed the unprecedented joint airstrikes.
The British Armed Forces said they scrambled four Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s to launch Storm Shadow missiles at a missile facility where the Syrian regime is believed to be storing chemical weapons.
Saturday morning, British defense secretary Gavin Williamson told London-based national talk radio station LBC that early indications suggest the airstrikes were "a highly successful mission."
"We believe that the strikes we have taken last night have had a significant impact in terms of what the Syrian regime can do in the future," Williamson said.
In a press conference in London on Saturday, May reiterated her conviction that Assad's government forces were behind last week's chemical attack and said that the West had tried “every possible” diplomatic means to stop Assad from using chemical weapons. “But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted” by Syria and Russia, she said.
“So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime,” May said. “This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change.”
"I believe this was the right thing to do. I believe it's in our national interest," she said.
Asked by reporters if the U.K. would consider another strike if the chemical attacks in Syria continue, May didn't elaborate but said the Syrian regime should be in no doubt about British resolve.
Although of a much lower order of magnitude, May said, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K. in recent weeks is part of "a pattern of disregard for these norms," referring to the poisoning of former double spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury last month that has been blamed on the Russian government.
"So while this action is specifically about deterring the Syrian regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity," May said.
French President Emmanuel Macron agreed with May's sentiment and said "the red line set by France in May 2017 has been crossed."
"We can not tolerate the trivialization of the use of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger for the Syrian people and for our collective security," he added.
Macron's Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean Yves Le Drian called the joint operation in Syria “legitimate, proportioned and targeted."
A picture released by the French Defence Ministry shows the launching of a cruise missile from a French military vessel in the Mediterranean sea towards targets in Syria overnight. ECPAD / AFP - Getty Images
Upward of 500,000 people are thought to have died in the seven-year Syria civil war, a conflict that has also driven millions from their homes. The war has sucked in a number of actors — including Russia, Iran and Iran-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah on the side of Assad.
Russia’s 2015 decision to enter the conflict, backing Assad, turned the tide of the war and helped government forces recapture much of the territory held by rebels.
Trump has both in the past and recently expressed eagerness to get all American troops out of Syria — but he described the latest alleged attack as “mindless” in a series of tweets last weekend. And in an unusual criticism of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, he said: “Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay.”
Trump had previously shared his desire for a rapid withdrawal from Syria, which drew unanimous opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence community, who've argued that keeping the 2,000 U.S. soldiers currently in Syria is key to ensuring that the ISIS terror group does not make a comeback.
The president on Monday had condemned the suspected chemical attack, calling it a "heinous" act and saying his administration would soon make "major decisions" on how to respond.
Last year, Trump said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria "crosses a lot of lines for me."
On April 6, 2017, the Trump administration launched strikes on a Syrian-government airfield in retaliation for a chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun.
"Clearly, the Assad regime did not get the message last year," Defense Secretary Mattis said. "This time, our allies and we have struck harder."
by Daniel Arkin, F. Brinley Bruton and Phil McCausland / Apr.14.2018 / 11:12 AM ET / Updated 9:04 PM ET
The Damascus sky lights up with surface-to-air missile fire as a U.S.-led attack targeted different parts of the Syrian capital early Saturday, April 14, 2018.Hassan Ammar / AP
President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the United States military — in conjunction with France and the United Kingdom — to launch strikes on Syria in retaliation for a suspected chemical weapons attack by the regime of President Bashar al-Assad on a Damascus suburb last week.
The president said the U.S. would aim to hit sites "associated with the chemical weapons capabilities" of Assad's regime.
"We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents," Trump said in remarks from the White House, adding that the U.S. and its allies had "marshaled their righteous power."
President Trump announces precision strikes in Syria
07:39
Trump urged Iran and Russia to withdraw their support for what he called Syria's "barbarism and brutality."
In a direct address to the two countries, he asked, "What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men and women and children?"
Russia, one of Assad's key and uncompromising allies, responded quickly to Friday's attack shortly after the strikes were reported.
President Vladimir Putin denounced the raids as an "act of aggression against a sovereign state" that will make the humanitarian crisis in Syria worse and called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations' Security Council. Putin added that the strike had a "destructive influence on the entire system of international relations."
From Arab Spring to chemical attacks: A timeline of the Syrian conflict and the U.S. response
The suspected nerve agent attack in the city of Douma in eastern Ghouta on April 7 killed dozens of people, including children, local activists have told NBC News. Syria and Russia have denied any involvement in the alleged attack.
On Saturday Putin reaffirmed Russia's view that the purported chemical attack was a fake, criticizing the U.S. and its allies for launching the strike without waiting for inspectors from the international chemical weapons watchdog to visit the area.
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said later Saturday that its fact-finding team would continue a planned deployment to Syria to help establish the facts around the suspected chemical weapons attack in Douma.
The airstrikes drew support from the European Union, Germany, Israel and other allies while British Prime Minister Theresa May said reports indicate the Syrian government used a barrel bomb to deliver the chemicals used in an attack on Douma. She said the use of force was "right and legal" in this case.
Meanwhile in Syria, explosions were heard to the east, west and south of Damascus, and witnesses saw blasts surrounding much of the Syrian capital and a huge fire could be seen from a distance to the east. An Associated Press reporter in Damascus said the attacks turned the sky orange.
Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. and its partners launched the attack at 9 p.m. ET and struck multiple targets associated with Syria's chemical weapons program. Those targets included a scientific research center in Damascus, a chemical weapons storage facility near Homs, Syria, and a chemical weapons equipment and military outpost close to the second target.
Dunford explained that the U.S. identified the targets to mitigate collateral damage, civilian casualties and "the risk of Russian forces being involved."
He also said that the U.S. had noticed surface-to-air missile activity from the Assad regime.
Russia's Defense Ministry said out of the 103 missiles fired, 71 were downed — with Syrian air defense systems intercepting most rockets fired.
NBC News could not verify that claim.
At a news conference at the Pentagon after President Trump spoke on Friday night, Defense Secretary James Mattis described the strikes as "a little over double the weapons" used by the Trump administration to carry out a similar attack one year ago. That April 2017 attack consisted of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
"Clearly, the Assad regime did not get the message last year," Mattis said. "This time, our allies and we have struck harder. Together, we have sent a clear message to Assad, and his murderous lieutenants, that they should not perpetrate another chemical weapons attack for which they will be held accountable."
Mattis said the strike was a “single shot” aimed to deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons. Whether the United States and its allies will pursue further action in Syria would “depend on Mr. Assad should he decided to use more chemical weapons in the future," the secretary said.
Mattis also noted his concern that false information would be spread after the U.S. attack.
"Based on recent experience," he said at the conclusion of his remarks, "we fully expect a significant disinformation campaign over the coming days by those who have aligned themselves with the Assad regime."
There would be further details in the morning, Mattis and Dunford said.
The Syrian Foreign Ministry, in a statement provided to state-run news agency SANA, said that it "condemns in the strongest possible terms the brutal American-British-French aggression against it" and claimed the timing of the airstrikes "is aimed to impede the work" of chemical weapons inspectors.
The Associated Press reported that hundreds of Syrians gathered at landmark squares in the Syrian capital, honking their car horns, flashing victory signs and waving Syrian flags in scenes of defiance that followed the unprecedented joint airstrikes.
The British Armed Forces said they scrambled four Royal Air Force Tornado GR4s to launch Storm Shadow missiles at a missile facility where the Syrian regime is believed to be storing chemical weapons.
Saturday morning, British defense secretary Gavin Williamson told London-based national talk radio station LBC that early indications suggest the airstrikes were "a highly successful mission."
"We believe that the strikes we have taken last night have had a significant impact in terms of what the Syrian regime can do in the future," Williamson said.
In a press conference in London on Saturday, May reiterated her conviction that Assad's government forces were behind last week's chemical attack and said that the West had tried “every possible” diplomatic means to stop Assad from using chemical weapons. “But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted” by Syria and Russia, she said.
“So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime,” May said. “This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change.”
"I believe this was the right thing to do. I believe it's in our national interest," she said.
Asked by reporters if the U.K. would consider another strike if the chemical attacks in Syria continue, May didn't elaborate but said the Syrian regime should be in no doubt about British resolve.
Although of a much lower order of magnitude, May said, the use of a nerve agent on the streets of the U.K. in recent weeks is part of "a pattern of disregard for these norms," referring to the poisoning of former double spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury last month that has been blamed on the Russian government.
"So while this action is specifically about deterring the Syrian regime, it will also send a clear signal to anyone else who believes they can use chemical weapons with impunity," May said.
French President Emmanuel Macron agreed with May's sentiment and said "the red line set by France in May 2017 has been crossed."
"We can not tolerate the trivialization of the use of chemical weapons, which is an immediate danger for the Syrian people and for our collective security," he added.
Macron's Minister of Foreign Affairs Jean Yves Le Drian called the joint operation in Syria “legitimate, proportioned and targeted."
A picture released by the French Defence Ministry shows the launching of a cruise missile from a French military vessel in the Mediterranean sea towards targets in Syria overnight. ECPAD / AFP - Getty Images
Upward of 500,000 people are thought to have died in the seven-year Syria civil war, a conflict that has also driven millions from their homes. The war has sucked in a number of actors — including Russia, Iran and Iran-backed Lebanese militia Hezbollah on the side of Assad.
Russia’s 2015 decision to enter the conflict, backing Assad, turned the tide of the war and helped government forces recapture much of the territory held by rebels.
Trump has both in the past and recently expressed eagerness to get all American troops out of Syria — but he described the latest alleged attack as “mindless” in a series of tweets last weekend. And in an unusual criticism of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, he said: “Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price to pay.”
Trump had previously shared his desire for a rapid withdrawal from Syria, which drew unanimous opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, the State Department and the intelligence community, who've argued that keeping the 2,000 U.S. soldiers currently in Syria is key to ensuring that the ISIS terror group does not make a comeback.
The president on Monday had condemned the suspected chemical attack, calling it a "heinous" act and saying his administration would soon make "major decisions" on how to respond.
Last year, Trump said that the use of chemical weapons in Syria "crosses a lot of lines for me."
On April 6, 2017, the Trump administration launched strikes on a Syrian-government airfield in retaliation for a chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun.
Mark Zuckerberg Survived Congress. Now Facebook Has to Survive the FTC - TIME
Mark Zuckerberg Survived Congress. Now Facebook Has to Survive the FTC
Posted: 12 Apr 2018 02:10 PM PDT
During almost ten hours of hearings this week, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg faced questions from nearly 100 members of Congress. And more than a dozen of them brought up the Federal Trade Commission. While questions about that agency may not have made for the sexiest soundbites, its actions may prove to be one of the most important factors in whether Congress actually regulates Big Tech, or just continues to talk about doing so.
The FTC is more of a law enforcement agency than a rule-making one, and one of its primary mandates is protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices. Following revelations about Cambridge Analytica, a political marketing firm that improperly obtained personal information from approximately 87 million Facebook user profiles, the FTC announced that it was opening an investigation into Facebook’s privacy practices. Tom Pahl, the acting director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement that the agency is “firmly and fully committed to using all of its tools to protect the privacy of consumers.”
This is a big deal — the company’s stock took a hit as reports of the investigation surfaced — in part because Facebook has been in the agency’s sights before. In 2012, the social media behemoth reached a final settlement with the FTC over charges that the company previously deceived consumers by saying their information would remain private “and then repeatedly allowing it to be shared and made public.” The complaint specifically references the fact that users’ data could be obtained by third-party app developers in ways that could have caught those users unaware, which is awfully reminiscent of Facebook’s current fiasco.
As part of an agreement known as a consent decree, Facebook promised to institute and maintain a comprehensive privacy program. William Kovacic, who was an FTC commissioner until 2011 and is now a professor at the George Washington University School of Law, says the agency viewed that privacy program as “a flagship” designed to show how serious the FTC was about making broad protections a rule of the road for the entire tech sector. “If there’s a violation and you don’t do something, your flagship policy is in jeopardy,” Kovacic says. “The stakes here are huge.”
So are the potential fines for violating that consent decree, one of the “tools” the FTC has at its disposal. Each violation could merit a fine of more than $40,000, per user, per day. Multiply that by the 87 million users affected by the Cambridge Analytica leak, and theoretical fines quickly jump into the trillions — a potentially devastating figure even for Facebook, which has a market capitalization of about $480 billion as of this writing. Though Kovacic says it’s unlikely the FTC would ever pursue such a ruinous amount, it could be a bargaining chip. The question, he says, is how big of a number would show that the FTC is very serious about its policy and its decree. “It’s hard to imagine the commission would walk away without a lot of zeroes,” he says.
Facebook has plenty to lose if the FTC proves it violated the agreement, a result that would give merit to allegations that the company isn’t nearly as serious or diligent about privacy as it claims to be. But the FTC also has the potential to look flat-footed. If there was a violation, the FTC is at risk of appearing like it can’t enforce its own decrees. If there wasn’t — if the model policy didn’t actually prohibit the lax practices that led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal — then the agency may look like it can’t handle the increasingly pressing issue of protecting Americans’ privacy. “If the FTC wants to protect themselves as an institution,” one former FTC attorney says, “they might go guns blazing and really try to hammer Facebook.”
Some Republicans have argued that the FTC has sufficient authority to keep tech firms in check, so additional regulations from Congress are unnecessary. Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democrat, said on Wednesday that his GOP colleagues have too often said that new protections are not needed “because the Federal Trade Commission has everything under control. Well, this latest disaster shows just how wrong the Republicans are.” If Republicans want to have a good rebuttal to such statements, then they have reason to hope the FTC is aggressive in its Facebook investigation.
It is not yet clear there was a violation on Facebook’s part, though lawmakers like Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal alleged as much to Zuckerberg’s face during this week’s hearings. Zuckerberg repeatedly said he believes Facebook abided by the wording of the decree, even if it failed in other respects. Company lawyers are no doubt scouring that document closely.
How is it possible that there was no violation of that agreement when so many users feel Facebook violated their trust? Facebook has argued that, technically, there was no “data breach” at all in the Cambridge Analytica case. The company says that a researcher collected data from user profiles in 2013 under the auspices of academic research, then improperly sold that information to a commercial firm, which developed ties to Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign. The researcher did so by creating an app that about 300,000 people linked to their Facebook profiles. That app then scooped up information about those users but also hundreds of those users’ friends, ballooning the number of affected people into the tens of millions.
Facebook says this isn’t a breach because, though the company has since changed its policies, that was simply how the platform worked at the time. “The way that the platform worked, that you could sign into an app and bring some of your information and some of your friends’ information,” Zuckerberg said during the hearings “is how we explained it would work.” In effect, he suggested that the 87 million users consented to having the researcher end up with their data, just not the firm he sold it to, because selling the information violated Facebook’s policies.
Zuckerberg has apologized for not better policing app developers. He has also announced that Facebook is reviewing tens of thousands of apps that had access to large amounts of users’ data in previous years. But he has maintained that Facebook was still acting by the book. “The system basically worked as it was designed,” Zuckerberg said on Tuesday. “The issue is that we designed the system in a way that wasn’t good.” So far as the FTC investigation goes, this will be an argument that the wrongdoing was done by third parties more than the company itself.
One former FTC attorney notes that Facebook could have failed to disclose information relevant to enforcing the decree, which was written at a time when the technological landscape was less complex. Zuckerberg said during this week’s hearings that the company did not notify the FTC when it became aware in 2015 that a heap of user data was in a place it wasn’t supposed to be because Facebook asked for the data to be deleted and believed it had been. A key factor in an investigation like this, Kovacic says, is the extent of knowledge and culpability on the part of the actor. “A crucial ingredient of this investigation will be to determine when the company became aware of this anomaly and what they did as it became apparent,” he says.
These kinds of tick-tock details will be uncovered as the non-public investigation, which could take months or longer, unfolds. Kovacic notes that the probe has potential to go beyond Cambridge Analytica, winding into a broader examination of the company’s practices, especially if Facebook fights the agency rather than negotiating a new settlement. “You might prefer to wrap things up,” he says, “short of having an exacting study of how you do business by the FTC.” The Department of Justice could also get involved, potentially pursuing civil penalties in court.
Yet agreeing to new conditions or more exacting oversight controls would also be a tricky business for Facebook. “The best the FTC can do is ‘fence in’ Facebook’s behavior to curb how misleading and surprising the company’s information sharing is,” explains Berkeley Law Professor Chris Hoofnagle. He adds that though he believes it is very unlikely for Facebook, “such fencing in” can send companies “on a long-term death spiral.” Part of the reason that won’t happen this time, he says, is simply how widespread the use of the social media platform is. “Facebook will survive any assault by the FTC,” he writes in an email, “because there is no substitute for consumers to go to.”
While privacy is part of the FTC’s mandate, it also oversees other areas like advertising and antitrust. Some critics believe the agency — which did not stop Facebook from purchasing rivals like Instagram and WhatsApp — is partly to blame for the lack of alternatives. “They’re really culpable and they really helped shape the structure of the modern Internet,” says Mark Stoller, a fellow at the Open Markets Institute. He, for one, has little faith that the FTC will crack down on Facebook, viewing the new investigation as “a political call.”
If the FTC doesn’t come out of this looking like a cop on top of his or her beat, more lawmakers may argue that it’s time to enshrine privacy protections and rules about data consent into law, or even set up a new government agency dedicated entirely to data security. During the hearings Wednesday, Rep. Raul Ruiz, a Democrat from California, cited the “weakness of the current system” and failures of tech firms to self-police in arguing that a new bureau might be necessary.
“Would it be helpful if there was an entity clearly tasked with overseeing how consumer data is being collected, shared and used, and which could offer guidelines, at least guidelines for companies like yours to ensure your business practices are not in violation of the law,” Ruiz asked at the House hearing, “something like a digital consumer protection agency?”
As Zuckerberg responded to so many other questions about specific proposals, he expressed a hedging openness to the idea. “Congressman, I think it’s an idea that deserves a lot of consideration,” he said. “But I think the details on this really matter.”
Trump lawyer Michael Cohen under criminal investigation - BBC News
Trump lawyer Michael Cohen under criminal investigation
13 April 2018
Michael Cohen works as a lawyer for President Donald Trump
US President Donald Trump's top lawyer is under criminal investigation, the US justice department has announced.
Prosecutors say they are focusing on Michael Cohen's business dealings rather than his work as a lawyer.
Mr Cohen has been under investigation for months, the court filing says.
The filing was in response to efforts by Mr Cohen's own lawyer to stop prosecutors reviewing material seized from Mr Cohen's office on Monday.
Mr Cohen's team argues that the papers are covered by the attorney-client privilege.
President Trump has condemned the office raid, calling it "disgraceful" and "an attack on our country".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Attorney–client privilege is dead!
9:07 PM - Apr 10, 2018
During a court hearing in New York on Friday, prosecutor Tom McKay accused Mr Cohen of trying to use attorney-client privilege "as a sword to challenge the government's ability to review evidence".
Trump hits out at 'disgraceful' FBI raid
Why the raid on Trump's lawyer is a big deal
Government prosecutors also said they believed Mr Cohen had "a low volume of potentially privileged communication" because he seems to only have one client - President Trump.
"It is neither apparent that Cohen, in his capacity as an attorney, has many, or any, attorney-client relationships other than with President Donald Trump," the filing said.
It added that while Mr Cohen was an attorney, "he also has several other business interests and sources of income", and is "being investigated for criminal conduct that largely centres on his personal business dealings".
A new lawyer for President Trump, Joanna Hendon, said the president had an "acute interest" in the case. Ms Hendon, who was hired on Wednesday, asked the judge to adjourn the session so she had more time to prepare.
According to a New York Times report, the president phoned Mr Cohen to "check in" on him today.
Lawyers tend to advise clients not to discuss investigations - which means their discussion could cause them problems, depending on what they talked about.
Joanna Hendon, left, said President Trump hired her firm on Wednesday
In a separate development, Mr Cohen reportedly negotiated a $1.6 million settlement with a former Playboy model on behalf of a Republican fundraiser, according to a Wall Street Journal article.
Elliott Broidy, a Los Angeles investor, acknowledged "a consensual relationship" with the Playmate, who became pregnant.
Mr Broidy said it was "unfortunate" that the personal matter was "the subject of national discussion" because of the involvement of Mr Cohen.
The investor was previously in the news after he urged President Trump to sack then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson over a diplomatic dispute.
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
Mr Cohen has admitted to have paid a porn actress, Stormy Daniels, $130,000 before the 2016 US presidential election.
Ms Daniels claims she had an affair with Mr Trump, and he and his lawyers made attempts to buy her silence.
The president denies the alleged relationship.
13 April 2018
Michael Cohen works as a lawyer for President Donald Trump
US President Donald Trump's top lawyer is under criminal investigation, the US justice department has announced.
Prosecutors say they are focusing on Michael Cohen's business dealings rather than his work as a lawyer.
Mr Cohen has been under investigation for months, the court filing says.
The filing was in response to efforts by Mr Cohen's own lawyer to stop prosecutors reviewing material seized from Mr Cohen's office on Monday.
Mr Cohen's team argues that the papers are covered by the attorney-client privilege.
President Trump has condemned the office raid, calling it "disgraceful" and "an attack on our country".
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Attorney–client privilege is dead!
9:07 PM - Apr 10, 2018
During a court hearing in New York on Friday, prosecutor Tom McKay accused Mr Cohen of trying to use attorney-client privilege "as a sword to challenge the government's ability to review evidence".
Trump hits out at 'disgraceful' FBI raid
Why the raid on Trump's lawyer is a big deal
Government prosecutors also said they believed Mr Cohen had "a low volume of potentially privileged communication" because he seems to only have one client - President Trump.
"It is neither apparent that Cohen, in his capacity as an attorney, has many, or any, attorney-client relationships other than with President Donald Trump," the filing said.
It added that while Mr Cohen was an attorney, "he also has several other business interests and sources of income", and is "being investigated for criminal conduct that largely centres on his personal business dealings".
A new lawyer for President Trump, Joanna Hendon, said the president had an "acute interest" in the case. Ms Hendon, who was hired on Wednesday, asked the judge to adjourn the session so she had more time to prepare.
According to a New York Times report, the president phoned Mr Cohen to "check in" on him today.
Lawyers tend to advise clients not to discuss investigations - which means their discussion could cause them problems, depending on what they talked about.
Joanna Hendon, left, said President Trump hired her firm on Wednesday
In a separate development, Mr Cohen reportedly negotiated a $1.6 million settlement with a former Playboy model on behalf of a Republican fundraiser, according to a Wall Street Journal article.
Elliott Broidy, a Los Angeles investor, acknowledged "a consensual relationship" with the Playmate, who became pregnant.
Mr Broidy said it was "unfortunate" that the personal matter was "the subject of national discussion" because of the involvement of Mr Cohen.
The investor was previously in the news after he urged President Trump to sack then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson over a diplomatic dispute.
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
Mr Cohen has admitted to have paid a porn actress, Stormy Daniels, $130,000 before the 2016 US presidential election.
Ms Daniels claims she had an affair with Mr Trump, and he and his lawyers made attempts to buy her silence.
The president denies the alleged relationship.
Syria air strikes: UK confident of successful mission, says PM - BBC News
April 14, 2018
Syria air strikes: UK confident of successful mission, says PM
Theresa May said the UK had taken part in "limited and targeted strikes"
The UK is "confident" that air strikes carried out by Britain, the US and France on suspected chemical weapons facilities in Syria have been successful, the PM has said.
Theresa May also said it had been "right and legal" to take action.
Military bases near the capital Damascus and the city of Homs were targeted, after an alleged chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma.
Labour's Jeremy Corbyn called the strikes "legally questionable".
Syrian state media said there had been a "violation of international law".
US and allies launch strikes on Syria
Live updates: Western powers strike Syria targets
Theresa May: Syria statement in full
Nicola Sturgeon: Air strikes risk dangerous escalation
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
Speaking in Downing Street, Mrs May said the "limited and targeted strikes" had degraded Syria's ability to use chemical weapons.
"This collective action sends a clear message that the international community will not stand by and tolerate the use of chemical weapons," she said.
Drawing a link with the recent nerve agent attack in Salisbury, Mrs May added: "We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised - either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere."
She also said she would make a statement to Parliament on Monday and give MPs a chance to ask questions.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said Storm Shadow missiles had been launched by four RAF Tornados at a former missile base 15 miles west of Homs, where it is thought President Bashar al-Assad's regime has been stockpiling items used to make chemical weapons.
Media captionRAF planes took off from their airbase in Cyprus ahead of the strikes in Syria
An MoD spokesperson added the facility was "located some distance from any known concentrations of civilian habitation", and scientific analysis was used to "minimise any risks of contamination to the surrounding area".
A Nato meeting will be held on Saturday during which the UK, France and the US will brief allies on the action taken in Syria.
Analysis
By Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent
Whitehall officials say the aim of launching strikes against Syria has been to deal a big enough blow to the Assad regime that it deters it from using chemical weapons again - but not so big as to alter the course of the Syrian conflict or draw retaliation from Russia.
Planners took the view that the limited US missile strike on Shayrat airbase a year ago had failed to dissuade the Assad regime from using poison gas.
Before the green light was given by the prime minister for RAF participation in today's attack, the defence secretary spent time with the attorney general going over the legality of the targeting in precise detail.
I am told that the lessons of the Chilcot Report - into the mistakes made over the Iraq invasion of 2003 - have been uppermost in people's minds. Decisions, phone calls and sign-offs made over the last few days may one day have to be scrutinised by lawyers.
Russia too has been a major factor in choosing which targets to attack. Planners believe that the best way to mitigate against any Russian retaliation was to warn them in advance and avoid hitting any Russian positions in Syria.
Addressing a press conference on Saturday, Mrs May said she believed the strike action had been "the right thing to do" and was "absolutely in Britain's national interest".
"This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change," she said.
"It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties."
She said the UK government "judged it highly likely" that Syria had been using chemical weapons, and it was "clear" the Assad regime was responsible for the "despicable and barbaric" attack on civilians on 7 April.
Evidence suggested a barrel bomb transported by a regime helicopter had been used to deliver the chemicals, she added. "No other group could have carried out this attack."
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said Britain, the US and France had played an important role in "degrading the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons".
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson welcomed the news, saying the "world is united in its disgust for any use of chemical weapons, but especially against civilians".
Media captionSyria strikes 'degraded' Assad's chemical weapons ability
'Chemical weapon stockpile'
Reporting from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, the BBC's Jonathan Beale said the Tornados had left the airbase in the early hours of Saturday.
He added the cruise missiles had been fired "well away from Syrian airspace" and were out of the range of the regime's air defences.
It was assessed that the Syrian regime had been using the former missiles base to "keep chemical weapon precursors, stockpiled in breach of Syria's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention," the MoD said in a statement.
Image copyrightPA
PM has chosen which way to jump on Syria
By Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor
Prime ministers don't choose the decisions that face them. But they have to judge which way to jump.
In 2013, Theresa May's predecessor tried and failed to get approval for military action against President Assad. There was international alarm, then as now, about his suspected use of chemical weapons.
Read the full blog here.
Meanwhile, the US Russian embassy Twitter account called the strikes "unacceptable and inadmissable".
And Syria's official Sana news agency cited an unnamed source as saying: "When terrorists failed, the US, France and Britain intervened and committed aggression against Syria.
"The American, French and British aggression against Syria will fail."
In the UK, Mr Corbyn condemned the government's involvement in the air strikes, saying it "makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely".
He added that Mrs May should have sought parliamentary approval.
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Mrs May had not answered how the action, "taken without parliamentary approval, will halt their [Syria's] use" of chemical weapons, "or bring long term peace".
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable also said MPs should have had a vote on the action, adding: "Riding the coat-tails of an erratic US president is no substitute for a mandate from the House of Commons."
But Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party said Mrs May had "the full authority" to order the air strikes and it rejected "any suggestion that she was not entitled to do so".
What is an RAF Tornado?
Tornado GR4
Crew: 2
Max speed: Mach 1.3
Weapons: Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway, General Purpose Bombs, Mauser 27mm cannon
Source: RAF
The Tornado has been one of the mainstays of the RAF since first entering service in 1980 and the aircraft were used to enforce no-fly zones in Iraq.
It is mainly used as a strike or attack aircraft.
Weapons such as the Storm Shadow cruise missile mean that the Tornado can hit targets from a significant distance. The MoD describes the missile as being designed for "long range, highly accurate, deep penetration" against enemy command and control bunkers. It is fired from a Tornado GR4.
Tornado GR4s are also equipped with Brimstone missiles, an effective anti-armour weapon and can also be used for all-weather, day and night tactical reconnaissance.
Syria air strikes: UK confident of successful mission, says PM
Theresa May said the UK had taken part in "limited and targeted strikes"
The UK is "confident" that air strikes carried out by Britain, the US and France on suspected chemical weapons facilities in Syria have been successful, the PM has said.
Theresa May also said it had been "right and legal" to take action.
Military bases near the capital Damascus and the city of Homs were targeted, after an alleged chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma.
Labour's Jeremy Corbyn called the strikes "legally questionable".
Syrian state media said there had been a "violation of international law".
US and allies launch strikes on Syria
Live updates: Western powers strike Syria targets
Theresa May: Syria statement in full
Nicola Sturgeon: Air strikes risk dangerous escalation
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
Speaking in Downing Street, Mrs May said the "limited and targeted strikes" had degraded Syria's ability to use chemical weapons.
"This collective action sends a clear message that the international community will not stand by and tolerate the use of chemical weapons," she said.
Drawing a link with the recent nerve agent attack in Salisbury, Mrs May added: "We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to become normalised - either within Syria, on the streets of the UK or elsewhere."
She also said she would make a statement to Parliament on Monday and give MPs a chance to ask questions.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said Storm Shadow missiles had been launched by four RAF Tornados at a former missile base 15 miles west of Homs, where it is thought President Bashar al-Assad's regime has been stockpiling items used to make chemical weapons.
Media captionRAF planes took off from their airbase in Cyprus ahead of the strikes in Syria
An MoD spokesperson added the facility was "located some distance from any known concentrations of civilian habitation", and scientific analysis was used to "minimise any risks of contamination to the surrounding area".
A Nato meeting will be held on Saturday during which the UK, France and the US will brief allies on the action taken in Syria.
Analysis
By Frank Gardner, BBC security correspondent
Whitehall officials say the aim of launching strikes against Syria has been to deal a big enough blow to the Assad regime that it deters it from using chemical weapons again - but not so big as to alter the course of the Syrian conflict or draw retaliation from Russia.
Planners took the view that the limited US missile strike on Shayrat airbase a year ago had failed to dissuade the Assad regime from using poison gas.
Before the green light was given by the prime minister for RAF participation in today's attack, the defence secretary spent time with the attorney general going over the legality of the targeting in precise detail.
I am told that the lessons of the Chilcot Report - into the mistakes made over the Iraq invasion of 2003 - have been uppermost in people's minds. Decisions, phone calls and sign-offs made over the last few days may one day have to be scrutinised by lawyers.
Russia too has been a major factor in choosing which targets to attack. Planners believe that the best way to mitigate against any Russian retaliation was to warn them in advance and avoid hitting any Russian positions in Syria.
Addressing a press conference on Saturday, Mrs May said she believed the strike action had been "the right thing to do" and was "absolutely in Britain's national interest".
"This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change," she said.
"It is about a limited and targeted strike that does not further escalate tensions in the region and that does everything possible to prevent civilian casualties."
She said the UK government "judged it highly likely" that Syria had been using chemical weapons, and it was "clear" the Assad regime was responsible for the "despicable and barbaric" attack on civilians on 7 April.
Evidence suggested a barrel bomb transported by a regime helicopter had been used to deliver the chemicals, she added. "No other group could have carried out this attack."
Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said Britain, the US and France had played an important role in "degrading the ability of the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons".
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson welcomed the news, saying the "world is united in its disgust for any use of chemical weapons, but especially against civilians".
Media captionSyria strikes 'degraded' Assad's chemical weapons ability
'Chemical weapon stockpile'
Reporting from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, the BBC's Jonathan Beale said the Tornados had left the airbase in the early hours of Saturday.
He added the cruise missiles had been fired "well away from Syrian airspace" and were out of the range of the regime's air defences.
It was assessed that the Syrian regime had been using the former missiles base to "keep chemical weapon precursors, stockpiled in breach of Syria's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention," the MoD said in a statement.
Image copyrightPA
PM has chosen which way to jump on Syria
By Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor
Prime ministers don't choose the decisions that face them. But they have to judge which way to jump.
In 2013, Theresa May's predecessor tried and failed to get approval for military action against President Assad. There was international alarm, then as now, about his suspected use of chemical weapons.
Read the full blog here.
Meanwhile, the US Russian embassy Twitter account called the strikes "unacceptable and inadmissable".
And Syria's official Sana news agency cited an unnamed source as saying: "When terrorists failed, the US, France and Britain intervened and committed aggression against Syria.
"The American, French and British aggression against Syria will fail."
In the UK, Mr Corbyn condemned the government's involvement in the air strikes, saying it "makes real accountability for war crimes and use of chemical weapons less, not more likely".
He added that Mrs May should have sought parliamentary approval.
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Mrs May had not answered how the action, "taken without parliamentary approval, will halt their [Syria's] use" of chemical weapons, "or bring long term peace".
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable also said MPs should have had a vote on the action, adding: "Riding the coat-tails of an erratic US president is no substitute for a mandate from the House of Commons."
But Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party said Mrs May had "the full authority" to order the air strikes and it rejected "any suggestion that she was not entitled to do so".
What is an RAF Tornado?
Tornado GR4
Crew: 2
Max speed: Mach 1.3
Weapons: Storm Shadow, Brimstone, ALARM, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Paveway II, Paveway III, Enhanced Paveway, General Purpose Bombs, Mauser 27mm cannon
Source: RAF
The Tornado has been one of the mainstays of the RAF since first entering service in 1980 and the aircraft were used to enforce no-fly zones in Iraq.
It is mainly used as a strike or attack aircraft.
Weapons such as the Storm Shadow cruise missile mean that the Tornado can hit targets from a significant distance. The MoD describes the missile as being designed for "long range, highly accurate, deep penetration" against enemy command and control bunkers. It is fired from a Tornado GR4.
Tornado GR4s are also equipped with Brimstone missiles, an effective anti-armour weapon and can also be used for all-weather, day and night tactical reconnaissance.
Syria air strikes: US and allies attack 'chemical weapons sites' - BBC News
April 14, 2018
Syria air strikes: US and allies attack 'chemical weapons sites'
Video shows cruise missiles being launched from a ship in an unknown location and French Rafale jets taking off
The US, UK and France have bombed multiple government targets in Syria in an early morning operation targeting alleged chemical weapons sites.
The strikes were in response to a suspected chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma last week.
Explosions hit the capital, Damascus, as well as two locations near the city of Homs, the Pentagon said.
Russia's ambassador to the US responded by saying the attack on its ally "will not be left without consequences".
"The nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality," US President Donald Trump said in an address from the White House at about 21:00 local time (02:00 BST).
"The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons," he said.
The wave of strikes is the most significant attack against President Bashar al-Assad's government by Western powers in seven years of Syria's civil war.
Follow live: Western powers strike Syria targets
Four RAF fighters join Syria air strikes
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
A 'one-time shot'
At a Pentagon briefing shortly after Mr Trump's announcement, Gen Joseph Dunford listed three targets that had been struck:
A scientific research facility in Damascus, allegedly connected to the production of chemical and biological weapons
A chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs
A chemical weapons equipment storage site and an important command post, also near Homs
Syrian state television said government forces had shot down more than a dozen missiles, and claimed only the research facility in Damascus had been damaged.
Media captionUS prepared to "sustain" strikes until Syrian regime stops using chemical agents - Trump
According to a Russian defence ministry statement, "preliminary information" said there had been no casualties among the Syrian army or civilians.
There were initial reports that three civilians had been injured in Homs.
Reuters news agency cites a pro-Assad militia commander saying other locations were hit, including various sites close to Damascus: a military base in the Dimas area; army depots in the eastern Qalamoun; the Kiswah area, where Iran is believed to have been building a base; and a site in the Qasyoun hills, plus a research centre in Masyaf, further north. These reports are unverified.
UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights suggested more targets than the three listed by the Pentagon had been hit.
US Secretary of Defence James Mattis told journalists there were no reports of US losses in the operation.
In his earlier address, President Trump had said: "We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents."
But Secretary Mattis said that "right now, this is a one-time shot". Gen Dunford confirmed the wave of strikes had ended.
Gen Dunford said the US had specifically identified targets that would "mitigate" the risk of Russian casualties. But the Pentagon said that Russia - which has forces on the ground in Syria in support of the government - had not been given advance notice of the targets.
UK strikes in Homs
UK Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed British involvement, saying there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force".
But she also said the strikes were not about "regime change".
In a further press briefing on Saturday morning, she said that while the assessment of the strike's results was ongoing, she was confident of its success.
PM has chosen which way to jump on Syria
SWhat can Western military intervention achieve?
Media captionMay: 'We are acting together with our allies'
UK strikes carried out by four Tornado jets hit one of the targets mentioned by the Pentagon - a military site near the city of Homs which is believed to have housed precursor materials for chemical weapons, according to the UK Ministry of Defence.
French President Emmanuel Macron also confirmed his country's participation in the operation.
"Dozens of men, women and children were massacred with chemical weapons," he said of the Douma incident a week ago - adding that "the red line had been crossed".
Media captionUnverified video shows children being treated after the alleged gas attack
Analysis: Will this time be different?
Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent
This attack was more significant than the US strike against a Syrian air base a little over a year ago, but at first sight seems more limited than President Trump's rhetoric may have suggested.
Last year some 59 missiles were fired. This time a little over double that number were used.
The strikes are over for now, but there was a clear warning that if the Assad regime resorts to chemical weapons again then further strikes may well follow.
Care was taken, say the Americans, to avoid both Syrian and "foreign" - for that read Russian - casualties.
But the fundamental questions remain. Will President Assad be deterred?
Last year's US strike failed to change his behaviour. This time, will it be any different?
Read more: Will Western strikes sway Syria's Assad?
Syria has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons.
The international Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has dispatched a fact-finding mission to the site of the alleged attack in Syria. Investigators were due to start their probe later on Saturday.
Sana, Syria's official state news agency, called the Western action "a flagrant violation of international law".
"The American, French and British aggression against Syria will fail," it said.
The Syrian presidency has tweeted a short video of Bashar al-Assad walking into his office at 09:00 local time with the caption: "Morning of steadfastness".
In his speech, President Trump said Mr Assad had committed "the crimes of a monster".
Double the missiles
A US official told Reuters news agency that Tomahawk cruise missiles were used against multiple locations in Syria.
Secretary Mattis also said the scale of the strikes was about "double" what was launched in April 2017 after a chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun that killed more than 80 people.
One Damascus resident told BBC News: "It was mayhem above us."
"I saw more than 20 anti-air missiles launched. They'd fly really high then start weaving across, like they were following their target.
"I didn't see the cruise missiles, but I saw some falling debris nearby."
What has the reaction been?
Reaction to the strikes was mixed among the international community.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said he "condemns the attack in the most serious way".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel - who had ruled out joining the military action - said she supported the strikes as "necessary and appropriate".
Nato Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg tweeted support for the strikes, saying those who use chemical weapons "must be held accountable".
Jens Stoltenberg
✔
@jensstoltenberg
I support the actions by the US, UK and France against the #Syrian regime's chemical weapons facilities and capabilities. #NATO considers the use of chemical weapons unacceptable. Those responsible must be held accountable. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_153661.htm …
12:12 PM - Apr 14, 2018
Statement by the NATO Secretary General on the actions against the Syrian regime's chemical weapons...
I support the actions taken by the United States, the United Kingdom and France against the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons facilities and capabilities. This will reduce the regime’s ability to...
nato.int
Nato said it would hold a special meeting on Saturday, where the US, UK and France would brief other member states.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed his nation's support for the strikes.
Senator John McCain applauded Mr Trump for taking military action. The leading Republican and former prisoner-of-war, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, is often critical of the president.
Other senators argued that President Trump should come before Congress and receive authorisation for the use of military force.
Skip Twitter post by @SenRichardBlack
Senator Dick Black
✔
@SenRichardBlack
As a Purple Heart Vietnam veteran, I put my life on the line for this country. Sad to hear @realDonaldTrump has chosen to bomb #Syria. America is on the brink of WWIII, have no clear agenda and put our military personnel lives at risk. #Damascus #PeaceForSyria
12:06 PM - Apr 14, 2018
Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned UN members of their responsibilities.
"There's an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law in general," he said.
"I urge all member states to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances."
Syria air strikes: US and allies attack 'chemical weapons sites'
Video shows cruise missiles being launched from a ship in an unknown location and French Rafale jets taking off
The US, UK and France have bombed multiple government targets in Syria in an early morning operation targeting alleged chemical weapons sites.
The strikes were in response to a suspected chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma last week.
Explosions hit the capital, Damascus, as well as two locations near the city of Homs, the Pentagon said.
Russia's ambassador to the US responded by saying the attack on its ally "will not be left without consequences".
"The nations of Britain, France, and the United States of America have marshalled their righteous power against barbarism and brutality," US President Donald Trump said in an address from the White House at about 21:00 local time (02:00 BST).
"The purpose of our actions tonight is to establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread, and use of chemical weapons," he said.
The wave of strikes is the most significant attack against President Bashar al-Assad's government by Western powers in seven years of Syria's civil war.
Follow live: Western powers strike Syria targets
Four RAF fighters join Syria air strikes
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
A 'one-time shot'
At a Pentagon briefing shortly after Mr Trump's announcement, Gen Joseph Dunford listed three targets that had been struck:
A scientific research facility in Damascus, allegedly connected to the production of chemical and biological weapons
A chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs
A chemical weapons equipment storage site and an important command post, also near Homs
Syrian state television said government forces had shot down more than a dozen missiles, and claimed only the research facility in Damascus had been damaged.
Media captionUS prepared to "sustain" strikes until Syrian regime stops using chemical agents - Trump
According to a Russian defence ministry statement, "preliminary information" said there had been no casualties among the Syrian army or civilians.
There were initial reports that three civilians had been injured in Homs.
Reuters news agency cites a pro-Assad militia commander saying other locations were hit, including various sites close to Damascus: a military base in the Dimas area; army depots in the eastern Qalamoun; the Kiswah area, where Iran is believed to have been building a base; and a site in the Qasyoun hills, plus a research centre in Masyaf, further north. These reports are unverified.
UK-based monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights suggested more targets than the three listed by the Pentagon had been hit.
US Secretary of Defence James Mattis told journalists there were no reports of US losses in the operation.
In his earlier address, President Trump had said: "We are prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents."
But Secretary Mattis said that "right now, this is a one-time shot". Gen Dunford confirmed the wave of strikes had ended.
Gen Dunford said the US had specifically identified targets that would "mitigate" the risk of Russian casualties. But the Pentagon said that Russia - which has forces on the ground in Syria in support of the government - had not been given advance notice of the targets.
UK strikes in Homs
UK Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed British involvement, saying there was "no practicable alternative to the use of force".
But she also said the strikes were not about "regime change".
In a further press briefing on Saturday morning, she said that while the assessment of the strike's results was ongoing, she was confident of its success.
PM has chosen which way to jump on Syria
SWhat can Western military intervention achieve?
Media captionMay: 'We are acting together with our allies'
UK strikes carried out by four Tornado jets hit one of the targets mentioned by the Pentagon - a military site near the city of Homs which is believed to have housed precursor materials for chemical weapons, according to the UK Ministry of Defence.
French President Emmanuel Macron also confirmed his country's participation in the operation.
"Dozens of men, women and children were massacred with chemical weapons," he said of the Douma incident a week ago - adding that "the red line had been crossed".
Media captionUnverified video shows children being treated after the alleged gas attack
Analysis: Will this time be different?
Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent
This attack was more significant than the US strike against a Syrian air base a little over a year ago, but at first sight seems more limited than President Trump's rhetoric may have suggested.
Last year some 59 missiles were fired. This time a little over double that number were used.
The strikes are over for now, but there was a clear warning that if the Assad regime resorts to chemical weapons again then further strikes may well follow.
Care was taken, say the Americans, to avoid both Syrian and "foreign" - for that read Russian - casualties.
But the fundamental questions remain. Will President Assad be deterred?
Last year's US strike failed to change his behaviour. This time, will it be any different?
Read more: Will Western strikes sway Syria's Assad?
Syria has repeatedly denied using chemical weapons.
The international Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has dispatched a fact-finding mission to the site of the alleged attack in Syria. Investigators were due to start their probe later on Saturday.
Sana, Syria's official state news agency, called the Western action "a flagrant violation of international law".
"The American, French and British aggression against Syria will fail," it said.
The Syrian presidency has tweeted a short video of Bashar al-Assad walking into his office at 09:00 local time with the caption: "Morning of steadfastness".
In his speech, President Trump said Mr Assad had committed "the crimes of a monster".
Double the missiles
A US official told Reuters news agency that Tomahawk cruise missiles were used against multiple locations in Syria.
Secretary Mattis also said the scale of the strikes was about "double" what was launched in April 2017 after a chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun that killed more than 80 people.
One Damascus resident told BBC News: "It was mayhem above us."
"I saw more than 20 anti-air missiles launched. They'd fly really high then start weaving across, like they were following their target.
"I didn't see the cruise missiles, but I saw some falling debris nearby."
What has the reaction been?
Reaction to the strikes was mixed among the international community.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said he "condemns the attack in the most serious way".
German Chancellor Angela Merkel - who had ruled out joining the military action - said she supported the strikes as "necessary and appropriate".
Nato Secretary General Jen Stoltenberg tweeted support for the strikes, saying those who use chemical weapons "must be held accountable".
Jens Stoltenberg
✔
@jensstoltenberg
I support the actions by the US, UK and France against the #Syrian regime's chemical weapons facilities and capabilities. #NATO considers the use of chemical weapons unacceptable. Those responsible must be held accountable. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_153661.htm …
12:12 PM - Apr 14, 2018
Statement by the NATO Secretary General on the actions against the Syrian regime's chemical weapons...
I support the actions taken by the United States, the United Kingdom and France against the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons facilities and capabilities. This will reduce the regime’s ability to...
nato.int
Nato said it would hold a special meeting on Saturday, where the US, UK and France would brief other member states.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau expressed his nation's support for the strikes.
Senator John McCain applauded Mr Trump for taking military action. The leading Republican and former prisoner-of-war, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, is often critical of the president.
Other senators argued that President Trump should come before Congress and receive authorisation for the use of military force.
Skip Twitter post by @SenRichardBlack
Senator Dick Black
✔
@SenRichardBlack
As a Purple Heart Vietnam veteran, I put my life on the line for this country. Sad to hear @realDonaldTrump has chosen to bomb #Syria. America is on the brink of WWIII, have no clear agenda and put our military personnel lives at risk. #Damascus #PeaceForSyria
12:06 PM - Apr 14, 2018
Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned UN members of their responsibilities.
"There's an obligation, particularly when dealing with matters of peace and security, to act consistently with the Charter of the United Nations and with international law in general," he said.
"I urge all member states to show restraint in these dangerous circumstances."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
