Dying Stephen Hawking changed his mind on key theory
Oliver Moody, Science Correspondent
May 3 2018, 12:01am,
The Times
Science
Stephen Hawking’s last writing on physics announced a “significant departure” from his theory that the universe was effectively eternal
One of Stephen Hawking’s most famous and charismatic ideas was that the universe had no boundaries and time had no beginning.
However, it emerged yesterday that he had turned his back on the theory in the last paragraph of physics he wrote before his death.
The Cambridge University cosmologist, who died in March at the age of 76, has revised his signature hypothesis about the first instant of the Big Bang in a final, posthumous paper.
Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal, set out jointly in 1983 with the American physicist James Hartle, held that the universe was effectively eternal because time curved back on itself like a sphere. It became so closely associated with Hawking that it furnished a pivotal scene in his 2014 biopic, The Theory of Everything, which turned the theory into a metaphor for his physical determination and courage.
It also left him unsatisfied, because it implied the possible existence of a large number of different universes, each with its own laws of physics. This made it impossible to explain why our universe should behave the way it does.
Hawking’s last scientific work, written with Thomas Hertog, a theoretical physicist at the University of Leuven in Belgium and his collaborator of two decades’ standing, announces a “significant departure” from the theory.
Professor Hertog journeyed frequently to Cambridge to develop the idea, even as it became increasingly difficult for Hawking to communicate. In fact, Hawking’s thinking had come full circle as he returned to the research of his youth, Professor Hertog said.
“There is a single, over-arching question behind all of this work by Hawking,” he said. “It is a deeper understanding of where the laws of physics that we test in our labs come from.”
As a young scientist, shortly after he was diagnosed with motor neurone disease, Hawking argued that the Big Bang began with a point beyond the reach of mathematics, where the equations Einstein had coined to describe reality broke down. This was replaced by the no-boundary proposal, his first big breakthrough after he was appointed to the Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge.
Hawking’s “no-boundary” proposal became a metaphor for courage in The Theory of Everything, starring Eddie RedmayneHawking’s “no-boundary” proposal became a metaphor for courage in The Theory of Everything, starring Eddie Redmayne
ALLSTAR
The new paper, published in the Journal of High Energy Physics, ditches that hypothesis and states that there is a boundary after all. It also makes for a simpler set of alternative universes.
“The idea of the ‘no boundary’ is gone again,” Professor Hertog said. “At some point 13.8 billion years in the past we had a boundary, where our familiar notion of time ceases to be meaningful and we are left with a kind of timeless state. [Beyond it] there is nothing. No space. No time. Absolutely nothing.”
Marika Taylor, who studied under Hawking and is now professor of theoretical physics at the University of Southampton, said the no-boundary proposal had been a “beautiful” but flawed idea. Hawking’s final theory was a logical evolution of his earlier work and addressed a question to which there is still no conclusive answer, she added.
“I think it’s fair to say this is something which is still at the frontier of study. People believe that there was an inflationary period. What started that off is something that people are still exploring.”
However, Professor Taylor said that Hawking’s last paper was too speculative to ignite a revolution in cosmology: “There’s a core of sharp, rigorous work out there relating gravity to a theory with one less dimension, and they are pushing things beyond that. This is an interesting paper, and it’s Stephen’s last paper, but it’s not a breakthrough.”
The ‘no-boundary’ idea
The no-boundary proposal was one of Stephen Hawking’s most brilliant and troubling ideas. In 1983 he published a paper that appeared to solve the origin of time itself: it had no beginning. The further back you delve, the more time simply dwindles away. He compared it to travelling to the South Pole. By the time you arrive, the word “south” has lost its meaning.
However, the model had an awkward implication. It gave rise to any number of possible universes, most of them hostile to the stable existence of the matter that makes up stars, planets and human beings. Hawking found all this deeply messy. His last paper is an attempt to resolve the problem. Hawking and Thomas Hertog describe a new boundary at the start of a finite universe, which leads logically to reality as we know it.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Not Everyone Gets Why OPEC Is Determined to Stick With Cuts - Bloomberg
Not Everyone Gets Why OPEC Is Determined to Stick With Cuts
By Grant Smith
May 2, 2018, 9:01 AM GMT+10 Updated on May 2, 2018, 10:04 PM GMT+10
New oil investment target may already have been achieved
Major companies are boosting output while restraining capex
OPEC and Russia seem determined to keep on cutting production even after their campaign to rebalance world oil markets achieved its main target. The primary justification for doing so looks shaky.
Sixteen months of output curbs have all but eliminated surplus oil inventories and prices are near a three-year high. But Saudi Arabia says the “mission is not accomplished yet” and is urging fellow producers to keep output restrained to fulfill a new priority: encouraging companies around the world to invest more in future supply.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries isn’t the only voice warning about a lack of spending on new projects. Influential figures from the International Energy Agency to the boss of oil major Total SA have warned a supply shortage could emerge early next decade after a period of deep cuts in spending. Under-investment could push prices as high as $300 a barrel within a few years, prominent hedge-fund manager Pierre Andurand said this week.
Yet there’s also no shortage of people who see OPEC’s concern about investment as a pretext for prolonging a strategy that keeps oil prices as high as possible. First-quarter earnings showed major companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Eni SpA and Chevron Corp. are spending less but still expanding production thanks to cost cuts. U.S. oil drillers are deploying more rigs and maxing out pipelines.
At current prices the industry is already on track to deliver the extra output the world needs, according to Rystad A/S.
OPEC's New Goal May Already Be Achieved
Rystad says global investment is on track to deliver the necessary supplies
“Over the next 10 years, we see that supply will continue to keep up with demand growth,” said Espen Erlingsen, an analyst at Oslo-based consultant Rystad. “The surge in North American shale activity and startup of new fields are the main drivers for this growth.”
Saudi Arabian Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said at a meeting of OPEC ministers last month that the world needs to invest enough to provide 4 million to 5 million barrels of additional daily oil-production capacity each year. That amount -- roughly equivalent to a new Iraq -- is needed to meet growing demand and make up for supplies lost to natural decline.
Investment is the “most important metric” for gauging how long OPEC and Russia’s cuts need to continue, Al-Falih said. The group will examine this proposal along with a “menu” of other possible targets at its next meeting in late June, he said.
There’s little doubt that energy companies have curbed investment in new projects since prices slumped almost four years ago. The IEA says spending dropped about $338 billion, or 44 percent, between 2014 and 2017.
It’s also true that production from existing fields decreases naturally every single year. Supplies equivalent to the whole North Sea were lost to natural decline in 2017, the IEA estimates.
Cheaper Barrels
However, a modest recovery in spending already seems to be under way as crude prices rise, according to the IEA. The downturn has spurred companies to operate more efficiently. In the last few years, decline rates at mature fields have undergone a “remarkable deceleration,” notably in the North Sea and Russia, the agency said.
New projects have become much cheaper after companies pressured suppliers and simplified their designs. BP Plc cut the costs for its Mad Dog oil field in the Gulf of Mexico by 60 percent. Statoil ASA’s Johan Castberg field in Norway will now turn a profit at $35 a barrel, compared with $80 estimated just a few years ago.
The upshot is that it costs less to expand global oil production today than it did back in 2014. Rystad said industry spending in recent years will deliver the necessary 7 percent growth in global oil production to just over 103 million barrels a day by the end of the decade. That trend will continue over the next 10 years if oil remains between $60 and $70 a barrel, it said.
It's Going to be Alright
Oil investments are on track to deliver 103 million b/d in 2020
Even if the projections from Rystad, which also provides data to the IEA, prove to be spot-on, OPEC needs something more immediate as a basis for its decision on whether to continue or phase out production cuts.
Yet the timeliness of hard data on investment is questionable. The oil-inventory numbers from industrialized nations that OPEC has used up until now arrive with a delay of about two months, but the latest figures on spending reflect the state of the market 12 to 24 months ago.
Capex Uncertainty
“We only know capex expenditures when earnings reports are out, and even then forward guidance can be changed,” said Harry Tchilinguirian, head of commodity-markets strategy at BNP Paribas SA in London. “In addition, pinpointing when first production will take place after capex spending is subject to uncertainty. Projects can be delayed for various reasons including budget over-runs, technical hurdles, etcetera.”
This lack of clarity may suit Saudi Arabia.
The kingdom is burdened with weighty domestic spending commitments and military involvement in Yemen, while also keen to get a rich valuation for the partial listing of its state oil company. It’s seeking prices of $80 a barrel, people familiar with the matter say, compared with about $73 for Brent crude currently.
Showing concern about investment is a way to mask OPEC’s main aim, according to Mike Wittner, head of oil-market research at Societe Generale SA.
“Talking about the need for more investment is a way of saying: ‘Hey, world, we’re OPEC and we want higher prices, but we’re actually doing you a favor’,” Wittner said. “In the end, it’s about revenues.”
By Grant Smith
May 2, 2018, 9:01 AM GMT+10 Updated on May 2, 2018, 10:04 PM GMT+10
New oil investment target may already have been achieved
Major companies are boosting output while restraining capex
OPEC and Russia seem determined to keep on cutting production even after their campaign to rebalance world oil markets achieved its main target. The primary justification for doing so looks shaky.
Sixteen months of output curbs have all but eliminated surplus oil inventories and prices are near a three-year high. But Saudi Arabia says the “mission is not accomplished yet” and is urging fellow producers to keep output restrained to fulfill a new priority: encouraging companies around the world to invest more in future supply.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries isn’t the only voice warning about a lack of spending on new projects. Influential figures from the International Energy Agency to the boss of oil major Total SA have warned a supply shortage could emerge early next decade after a period of deep cuts in spending. Under-investment could push prices as high as $300 a barrel within a few years, prominent hedge-fund manager Pierre Andurand said this week.
Yet there’s also no shortage of people who see OPEC’s concern about investment as a pretext for prolonging a strategy that keeps oil prices as high as possible. First-quarter earnings showed major companies including Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Eni SpA and Chevron Corp. are spending less but still expanding production thanks to cost cuts. U.S. oil drillers are deploying more rigs and maxing out pipelines.
At current prices the industry is already on track to deliver the extra output the world needs, according to Rystad A/S.
OPEC's New Goal May Already Be Achieved
Rystad says global investment is on track to deliver the necessary supplies
“Over the next 10 years, we see that supply will continue to keep up with demand growth,” said Espen Erlingsen, an analyst at Oslo-based consultant Rystad. “The surge in North American shale activity and startup of new fields are the main drivers for this growth.”
Saudi Arabian Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said at a meeting of OPEC ministers last month that the world needs to invest enough to provide 4 million to 5 million barrels of additional daily oil-production capacity each year. That amount -- roughly equivalent to a new Iraq -- is needed to meet growing demand and make up for supplies lost to natural decline.
Investment is the “most important metric” for gauging how long OPEC and Russia’s cuts need to continue, Al-Falih said. The group will examine this proposal along with a “menu” of other possible targets at its next meeting in late June, he said.
There’s little doubt that energy companies have curbed investment in new projects since prices slumped almost four years ago. The IEA says spending dropped about $338 billion, or 44 percent, between 2014 and 2017.
It’s also true that production from existing fields decreases naturally every single year. Supplies equivalent to the whole North Sea were lost to natural decline in 2017, the IEA estimates.
Cheaper Barrels
However, a modest recovery in spending already seems to be under way as crude prices rise, according to the IEA. The downturn has spurred companies to operate more efficiently. In the last few years, decline rates at mature fields have undergone a “remarkable deceleration,” notably in the North Sea and Russia, the agency said.
New projects have become much cheaper after companies pressured suppliers and simplified their designs. BP Plc cut the costs for its Mad Dog oil field in the Gulf of Mexico by 60 percent. Statoil ASA’s Johan Castberg field in Norway will now turn a profit at $35 a barrel, compared with $80 estimated just a few years ago.
The upshot is that it costs less to expand global oil production today than it did back in 2014. Rystad said industry spending in recent years will deliver the necessary 7 percent growth in global oil production to just over 103 million barrels a day by the end of the decade. That trend will continue over the next 10 years if oil remains between $60 and $70 a barrel, it said.
It's Going to be Alright
Oil investments are on track to deliver 103 million b/d in 2020
Even if the projections from Rystad, which also provides data to the IEA, prove to be spot-on, OPEC needs something more immediate as a basis for its decision on whether to continue or phase out production cuts.
Yet the timeliness of hard data on investment is questionable. The oil-inventory numbers from industrialized nations that OPEC has used up until now arrive with a delay of about two months, but the latest figures on spending reflect the state of the market 12 to 24 months ago.
Capex Uncertainty
“We only know capex expenditures when earnings reports are out, and even then forward guidance can be changed,” said Harry Tchilinguirian, head of commodity-markets strategy at BNP Paribas SA in London. “In addition, pinpointing when first production will take place after capex spending is subject to uncertainty. Projects can be delayed for various reasons including budget over-runs, technical hurdles, etcetera.”
This lack of clarity may suit Saudi Arabia.
The kingdom is burdened with weighty domestic spending commitments and military involvement in Yemen, while also keen to get a rich valuation for the partial listing of its state oil company. It’s seeking prices of $80 a barrel, people familiar with the matter say, compared with about $73 for Brent crude currently.
Showing concern about investment is a way to mask OPEC’s main aim, according to Mike Wittner, head of oil-market research at Societe Generale SA.
“Talking about the need for more investment is a way of saying: ‘Hey, world, we’re OPEC and we want higher prices, but we’re actually doing you a favor’,” Wittner said. “In the end, it’s about revenues.”
Trump claims immunity, asks court to toss foreign payments suit - Reuters
MAY 3, 2018 / 12:27 AM / UPDATED 11 MINUTES AGO
Trump claims immunity, asks court to toss foreign payments suit
Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has again asked a U.S. court to dismiss a suit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by refusing to separate himself from his business empire while in office, claiming “absolute immunity.”
The lawsuit, filed by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clause that bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other payments from foreign governments without congressional approval. The same clause also bars the president from receiving gifts and payments from individual states.
“If Plaintiffs want to sue the President for acts taken while in office, they must sue him in official capacity. But he is absolutely immune from any suit, including this one, seeking to impose individual liability premised on his assumption of the Presidency itself,” Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy wrote in a court filing on Tuesday.
“The Supreme Court has concluded that the costs to the Nation of allowing such suits to distract the President from his official duties outweigh any countervailing interests. That choice must be respected,” Consovoy added.
Trump’s legal team previously sought to have the case tossed out but U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland, last month let it proceed even as he narrowed the claims only to those related to Trump’s hotel in downtown Washington.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, both Democrats, argued in their suit, filed last June, that local residents were harmed by unfair competition by Trump’s hotel and other businesses. Lawyers for the Republican president previously argued that such harm was speculative and difficult to link directly to Trump.
Trump, whose businesses include a host of real estate properties as well as golf courses and a Virginia winery, handed day-to-day management to two of his sons. But the plaintiffs said Trump has not disentangled himself and is vulnerable to inducements by people, including foreign officials, seeking to curry favor.
Frosh and Racine have indicated they will seek numerous documents related to Trump, including his tax returns. Trump has bucked precedent by not releasing his tax returns during his 2016 presidential campaign or as president.
Trump repaid Cohen for hush money, says Giuliani
A U.S. judge in Manhattan in December threw out a similar lawsuit against Trump brought by another group of plaintiffs.
Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Will Dunham
Trump claims immunity, asks court to toss foreign payments suit
Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump has again asked a U.S. court to dismiss a suit accusing him of flouting constitutional safeguards against corruption by refusing to separate himself from his business empire while in office, claiming “absolute immunity.”
The lawsuit, filed by the state of Maryland and the District of Columbia, accused Trump of violating the U.S. Constitution’s “emoluments” clause that bars U.S. officials from accepting gifts or other payments from foreign governments without congressional approval. The same clause also bars the president from receiving gifts and payments from individual states.
“If Plaintiffs want to sue the President for acts taken while in office, they must sue him in official capacity. But he is absolutely immune from any suit, including this one, seeking to impose individual liability premised on his assumption of the Presidency itself,” Trump’s lawyer William Consovoy wrote in a court filing on Tuesday.
“The Supreme Court has concluded that the costs to the Nation of allowing such suits to distract the President from his official duties outweigh any countervailing interests. That choice must be respected,” Consovoy added.
Trump’s legal team previously sought to have the case tossed out but U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte in Greenbelt, Maryland, last month let it proceed even as he narrowed the claims only to those related to Trump’s hotel in downtown Washington.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh and District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine, both Democrats, argued in their suit, filed last June, that local residents were harmed by unfair competition by Trump’s hotel and other businesses. Lawyers for the Republican president previously argued that such harm was speculative and difficult to link directly to Trump.
Trump, whose businesses include a host of real estate properties as well as golf courses and a Virginia winery, handed day-to-day management to two of his sons. But the plaintiffs said Trump has not disentangled himself and is vulnerable to inducements by people, including foreign officials, seeking to curry favor.
Frosh and Racine have indicated they will seek numerous documents related to Trump, including his tax returns. Trump has bucked precedent by not releasing his tax returns during his 2016 presidential campaign or as president.
Trump repaid Cohen for hush money, says Giuliani
A U.S. judge in Manhattan in December threw out a similar lawsuit against Trump brought by another group of plaintiffs.
Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Will Dunham
Deep state has 'weaponized' security clearances against Trump, conservative Pentagon official's lawyer says - Fox News
May 2, 2018
Deep state has 'weaponized' security clearances against Trump, conservative Pentagon official's lawyer says
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Deep state is weaponizing staff security clearances against Trump: Sean Bigley
Tom Dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, and security clearance defense attorney Sean Bigley discuss special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and how the deep state is "weaponizing" the vetting of Trump appointees.
Political opponents of President Donald Trump have "weaponized" the security-clearance process against him in an undemocratic "power grab," stalling his nominations and systematically impeding White House operations, the lawyer for a top Defense Department official wrote Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal.
The charge comes less than a month after U.S. Sen. Rand Paul revealed that two romantically involved FBI officials who were removed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team over a series of anti-Trump text messages still have Top Secret security clearances.
National security attorney Sean Bigley wrote that his client, Adam Lovinger, is just one example of the ongoing war against Trump appointees. Lovinger served for more than a decade as a Pentagon strategist before being tapped to become an analyst for the National Security Council.
"Unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives ..."
- National security attorney Sean Bigley
But shortly after Lovinger turned whistleblower -- by raising concerns about the possible misuse of contractors to perform government functions -- his security clearance was suspended and he lost the NSC post, Bigley wrote.
JARED KUSHNER'S SECURITY CLEARANCE DOWNGRADED
According to Bigley, the Pentagon cited only "[s]pecious, and constantly evolving, claims of misconduct" against his client to justify the punishment. Government officials failed to provide any specific evidence for their claims, and Lovinger remains on administrative leave, the attorney wrote.
"One of Mr. Lovinger’s alleged transgressions was that Pentagon officials had improperly marked an academic report he took aboard an airplane for reading," Bigley wrote.
Republican senator from Kentucky on whether FBI officials caught sending anti-Trump text messages should be allowed to keep their clearances.
The root of the problem, according to Bigley, is systemic partisan bias among career government bureaucrats who have openly expressed their contempt for President Trump.
"In Mr. Lovinger’s case, those weaponizing the security-clearance process include a senior official who remains on the job despite publicly disparaging President Trump as 'unfit' to lead, a Pentagon attorney who instructed colleagues on the importance of concealing retaliatory motives behind their actions, and the Defense Department’s security adjudications chief, who persists in advancing false allegations," Bigley wrote.
"They and other unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives through a litany of seemingly small but slowly compounding abuses of bureaucratic power," he said.
TRUMP-HATING FBI BIGWIGS STILL HAVE TOP-SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE
The White House's handling of security clearances came under fire earlier this year, in the wake of revelations that former White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter had worked for more than a year with only interim clearance.
Porter, whose job gave him constant access to the most sensitive of documents, had been accused of domestic abuse by his two ex-wives. The White House repeatedly adjusted its timeline about who knew what and when about the allegations.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.
Deep state has 'weaponized' security clearances against Trump, conservative Pentagon official's lawyer says
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Deep state is weaponizing staff security clearances against Trump: Sean Bigley
Tom Dupree, former deputy assistant attorney general under George W. Bush, and security clearance defense attorney Sean Bigley discuss special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation and how the deep state is "weaponizing" the vetting of Trump appointees.
Political opponents of President Donald Trump have "weaponized" the security-clearance process against him in an undemocratic "power grab," stalling his nominations and systematically impeding White House operations, the lawyer for a top Defense Department official wrote Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal.
The charge comes less than a month after U.S. Sen. Rand Paul revealed that two romantically involved FBI officials who were removed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team over a series of anti-Trump text messages still have Top Secret security clearances.
National security attorney Sean Bigley wrote that his client, Adam Lovinger, is just one example of the ongoing war against Trump appointees. Lovinger served for more than a decade as a Pentagon strategist before being tapped to become an analyst for the National Security Council.
"Unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives ..."
- National security attorney Sean Bigley
But shortly after Lovinger turned whistleblower -- by raising concerns about the possible misuse of contractors to perform government functions -- his security clearance was suspended and he lost the NSC post, Bigley wrote.
JARED KUSHNER'S SECURITY CLEARANCE DOWNGRADED
According to Bigley, the Pentagon cited only "[s]pecious, and constantly evolving, claims of misconduct" against his client to justify the punishment. Government officials failed to provide any specific evidence for their claims, and Lovinger remains on administrative leave, the attorney wrote.
"One of Mr. Lovinger’s alleged transgressions was that Pentagon officials had improperly marked an academic report he took aboard an airplane for reading," Bigley wrote.
Republican senator from Kentucky on whether FBI officials caught sending anti-Trump text messages should be allowed to keep their clearances.
The root of the problem, according to Bigley, is systemic partisan bias among career government bureaucrats who have openly expressed their contempt for President Trump.
"In Mr. Lovinger’s case, those weaponizing the security-clearance process include a senior official who remains on the job despite publicly disparaging President Trump as 'unfit' to lead, a Pentagon attorney who instructed colleagues on the importance of concealing retaliatory motives behind their actions, and the Defense Department’s security adjudications chief, who persists in advancing false allegations," Bigley wrote.
"They and other unelected partisans are quietly usurping presidential prerogatives through a litany of seemingly small but slowly compounding abuses of bureaucratic power," he said.
TRUMP-HATING FBI BIGWIGS STILL HAVE TOP-SECRET SECURITY CLEARANCE
The White House's handling of security clearances came under fire earlier this year, in the wake of revelations that former White House Staff Secretary Rob Porter had worked for more than a year with only interim clearance.
Porter, whose job gave him constant access to the most sensitive of documents, had been accused of domestic abuse by his two ex-wives. The White House repeatedly adjusted its timeline about who knew what and when about the allegations.
Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.
North Korea-US talks: Who are North Korea's American detainees? - BBC News
May 3, 2018
North Korea-US talks: Who are North Korea's American detainees?
One of the three men who have been reportedly relocated, Kim Dong-chul, was sentenced to 10 years' hard labour after appearing before the media to confess in March 2016
Three Americans detained in North Korea have been relocated to a Pyongyang hotel and are receiving good food and medical care, reports say.
The reports suggest the three may be released as a gesture of good will, amid preparations for a meeting between leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump.
Mr Trump has said the US is "fighting very diligently" to win their freedom.
On Wednesday, he told his followers on Twitter to "stay tuned!" for news.
"As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three hostages to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail," he said.
Two of the detainees were jailed in 2017, after Mr Trump became president.
Just asking! Trump floats Korea border idea
The tricky task of preparing for the Trump-Kim summit
Will we ever know what happened to Otto Warmbier?
The US State Department has said it can not confirm the validity of the reports on the prisoner move, which came from Choi Sung-ryong, a South Korean activist with contacts in the North.
But a spokeswoman said the US was "working to see US citizens who are detained in North Korea come home as soon as possible".
Here's what we know about the three men.
Kim Hak-song
Kim Hak-song worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST) and was held on suspicion of "hostile acts" on 6 May 2017. He was reportedly detained while in Pyongyang Station.
The university, which mostly teaches the children of North Korea's elite, was founded in 2010 by a Korean-American Christian entrepreneur, with much of the costs funded by US and South Korea Christian charities.
Several foreign lecturers are thought to teach there.
Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump: From enemies to frenemies?
Kim Hak-song had previously described himself as a Christian missionary who intended to start an experimental farm at PUST, Reuters news agency reported, citing an online post by Mr Kim.
He is, reports say, an ethnic Korean born just across the North Korean border in China who emigrated to the US in the 1990s. He is said to have gone on to study agriculture in Yanbian, a Chinese prefecture which borders North Korea, before moving to Pyongyang.
Kim Sang-duk/Tony Kim
Two weeks before Kim Hak-song was arrested, Kim Sang-duk - also known as Tony Kim - was detained on espionage charges.
He was trying to leave the country after spending a month working at PUST. South Korean media said he was 55 and had been involved in humanitarian work in the North.
"Some officials at PUST told me his arrest was not related to his work at PUST," the chancellor of the university, Chan-Mo Park, told Reuters news agency.
Tony Kim was detained on espionage charges
"He had been involved with some other activities outside PUST, such as helping an orphanage."
Mr Kim studied accounting at two American universities and had worked as an accountant in the US for more than a decade, his Facebook page says.
He had also taught in Yanbian.
Kim Dong-chul
A South Korea-born US citizen, Kim Dong-chul is a pastor in his early 60s.
He was detained in 2015 on spying charges and sentenced to 10 years' hard labour in 2016.
Before his trial, he was presented at a government-arranged press conference, where he apparently confessed to stealing military secrets in collusion with South Korea - a claim rejected by Seoul.
In an interview with CNN in January 2016, Mr Kim said he lived in Fairfax, Virginia.
He said he used to run a trading and hotel services company in Rason, a special economic zone near the border zone in north-east North Korea.
He told CNN he had left a wife and two daughters behind in China, but had had no contact with them since his detention.
North Korea-US talks: Who are North Korea's American detainees?
One of the three men who have been reportedly relocated, Kim Dong-chul, was sentenced to 10 years' hard labour after appearing before the media to confess in March 2016
Three Americans detained in North Korea have been relocated to a Pyongyang hotel and are receiving good food and medical care, reports say.
The reports suggest the three may be released as a gesture of good will, amid preparations for a meeting between leader Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump.
Mr Trump has said the US is "fighting very diligently" to win their freedom.
On Wednesday, he told his followers on Twitter to "stay tuned!" for news.
"As everybody is aware, the past Administration has long been asking for three hostages to be released from a North Korean Labor camp, but to no avail," he said.
Two of the detainees were jailed in 2017, after Mr Trump became president.
Just asking! Trump floats Korea border idea
The tricky task of preparing for the Trump-Kim summit
Will we ever know what happened to Otto Warmbier?
The US State Department has said it can not confirm the validity of the reports on the prisoner move, which came from Choi Sung-ryong, a South Korean activist with contacts in the North.
But a spokeswoman said the US was "working to see US citizens who are detained in North Korea come home as soon as possible".
Here's what we know about the three men.
Kim Hak-song
Kim Hak-song worked at the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST) and was held on suspicion of "hostile acts" on 6 May 2017. He was reportedly detained while in Pyongyang Station.
The university, which mostly teaches the children of North Korea's elite, was founded in 2010 by a Korean-American Christian entrepreneur, with much of the costs funded by US and South Korea Christian charities.
Several foreign lecturers are thought to teach there.
Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump: From enemies to frenemies?
Kim Hak-song had previously described himself as a Christian missionary who intended to start an experimental farm at PUST, Reuters news agency reported, citing an online post by Mr Kim.
He is, reports say, an ethnic Korean born just across the North Korean border in China who emigrated to the US in the 1990s. He is said to have gone on to study agriculture in Yanbian, a Chinese prefecture which borders North Korea, before moving to Pyongyang.
Kim Sang-duk/Tony Kim
Two weeks before Kim Hak-song was arrested, Kim Sang-duk - also known as Tony Kim - was detained on espionage charges.
He was trying to leave the country after spending a month working at PUST. South Korean media said he was 55 and had been involved in humanitarian work in the North.
"Some officials at PUST told me his arrest was not related to his work at PUST," the chancellor of the university, Chan-Mo Park, told Reuters news agency.
Tony Kim was detained on espionage charges
"He had been involved with some other activities outside PUST, such as helping an orphanage."
Mr Kim studied accounting at two American universities and had worked as an accountant in the US for more than a decade, his Facebook page says.
He had also taught in Yanbian.
Kim Dong-chul
A South Korea-born US citizen, Kim Dong-chul is a pastor in his early 60s.
He was detained in 2015 on spying charges and sentenced to 10 years' hard labour in 2016.
Before his trial, he was presented at a government-arranged press conference, where he apparently confessed to stealing military secrets in collusion with South Korea - a claim rejected by Seoul.
In an interview with CNN in January 2016, Mr Kim said he lived in Fairfax, Virginia.
He said he used to run a trading and hotel services company in Rason, a special economic zone near the border zone in north-east North Korea.
He told CNN he had left a wife and two daughters behind in China, but had had no contact with them since his detention.
Stormy Daniels case: Trump repaid lawyer 'hush money', says Giuliani - BBC News
May 3, 2018
Stormy Daniels case: Trump repaid lawyer 'hush money', says Giuliani
Mr Trump has previously said he knew nothing of the payment to Ms Daniels
President Donald Trump personally repaid his lawyer the $130,000 that was used to buy an adult film actor's silence about an alleged affair, his legal aide Rudy Giuliani has said.
It appears to contradict Mr Trump, who said he did not know about the payment made by lawyer Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
Mr Trump has denied Ms Daniels' claims of an affair in 2006.
Mr Giuliani said no campaign finance was used, a key issue in the matter.
Should Trump be worried about Stormy Daniels?
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
What did Mr Giuliani say and why?
The former New York City mayor recently joined Mr Trump's legal team and was talking to Sean Hannity on Fox News.
The campaign finance issue appeared to be one his main motives for appearing on the programme - to deny that there was any wrongdoing.
Fox News
✔
@FoxNews
Rudy Giuliani: #Trump repaid Cohen for Stormy Daniels payment https://fxn.ws/2Ks5j7L
1:10 PM - May 3, 2018
Mr Cohen's $130,000 (£95,650) payment to Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election could count as an illegal contribution to President Trump's campaign.
Mr Giuliani said: "That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.
"They funnelled it through a law firm and the president repaid it."
He added that the president "didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know, but he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this".
Mr Giuliani later spoke to the New York Times, saying: "Some time after the campaign is over, they set up a reimbursement, $35,000 a month, out of his personal family account." The sum paid was $460,000-$470,000, including expenses, he said.
He also said Mr Trump was aware of what he was going to say on Fox News.
What are the issues over campaign finance?
US federal law restricts how much individuals and organisations can contribute to campaign financing and there are also strict regulations on the disclosure of the financing.
The first question is whether the payment to Ms Daniels was campaign related. Legal expert Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post: "If the purpose of this was to stop [Daniels] from hurting the campaign, then what you have is Cohen made a loan to the campaign."
The $130,000 would exceed the amount an individual can donate to a presidential campaign.
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
Michael Cohen is facing a criminal investigation over the matter
Any repayment by the Trump campaign would violate the law.
But presidential candidates are allowed to contribute an unlimited amount to their own campaign. Mr Trump may be arguing, through Mr Giuliani, that the personal nature of the repayment makes it legal.
However, if the $130,000 is deemed to have been a loan, the president could face questions as to why his personal financial disclosure form from June 2017 made no mention of any debt to Mr Cohen.
Ms Daniels' lawyer said it would need to be determined whether the payment was hidden in such a way as to violate anti-money laundering statutes.
So does this contradict the president?
When asked by reporters a month ago if he knew about the payment to Ms Daniels, Mr Trump said: "No."
When asked why the payment was given to Ms Daniels, he added: "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen."
The president might argue that the lawyer "took care of things like this", as Mr Giuliani suggested and that he knew nothing of the "specifics", making the repayment personally later.
Mr Giuliani told the Times he did not know whether Mr Trump was aware of the payment to Ms Daniels at the time but his understanding was that the president had only learned about it recently. It is unclear how this fits with his statement that repayments were made over several months.
Speaking on Fox TV last week, Mr Trump suggested some knowledge of the matter in admitting Mr Cohen had represented him during the "crazy Stormy Daniels deal", but did not go into specifics.
Mr Cohen, for his part, told the New York Times in February: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
How this relates to any personal repayments by Mr Trump is unclear.
What has been the reaction?
Ms Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that Americans "should be outraged" at Mr Giuliani's comments.
"We predicted months ago that it would be proven that the American people had been lied to as to the $130k payment and what Mr Trump knew," he wrote on Twitter.
He told Associated Press: "Mr Trump evidently has participated in a felony and there must be serious consequences for his conduct and his lies and deception to the American people," he said.
Stormy clouds not going away
Analysis by BBC's Anthony Zurcher in Washington
There are two ways to look at Rudy Giuliani's blockbuster revelation that Donald Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for his $130,000 payment.
The first is that the former New York mayor was freelancing and caught the president and the White House communications team flatfooted. In that case, Mr Giuliani's brief return to the political spotlight will be short-lived.
The other possibility is that this was a pre-planned revelation in the friendly confines of Sean Hannity's Fox News talk show. Some in the White House may have been caught by surprise, but there was a strategy in play. Perhaps Mr Giuliani and the president decided that the legal exposure from hiding that Mr Trump made the payment was more dangerous than the political risk from admitting he cut the cheque and lied about it.
Mr Trump has proven bulletproof when it comes to most political scandals and this one may prove no different, although the Stormy saga has proven to have staying power. Even with the revelation, the president and Mr Cohen's payment may still constitute a campaign finance law violation.
The Stormy clouds aren't going away.
How did the payment come about and what has happened since?
The payment relates to allegations by Ms Daniels that she had sex with Mr Trump in 2006, allegations he denies.
After initially denying the payment, Mr Cohen eventually admitted he had paid the sum privately to Ms Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, in October 2016 out of his own funds in exchange for her silence in a non-disclosure agreement.
Stormy Daniels: "I was threatened"
He denied that Mr Trump was a party to the transaction.
Mr Cohen is now facing a criminal investigation. FBI agents searched his home and office in New York recently in relation to the nondisclosure agreement.
In March this year, Ms Daniels filed a lawsuit against the president, alleging that the agreement was invalid because Mr Trump did not sign it.
She later lost a court motion for Mr Trump to give sworn testimony about her claim that they had a relationship.
While Mr Trump has denied her claims, his lawyers are seeking $20m in damages from Ms Daniels, arguing she broke the non-disclosure deal.
Ms Daniels is also suing the president over a "defamatory" tweet he posted after she said she was threatened by a man in a Las Vegas car park to drop her allegations of the affair.
Mr Trump said her claims were "a total con job".
Stormy Daniels case: Trump repaid lawyer 'hush money', says Giuliani
Mr Trump has previously said he knew nothing of the payment to Ms Daniels
President Donald Trump personally repaid his lawyer the $130,000 that was used to buy an adult film actor's silence about an alleged affair, his legal aide Rudy Giuliani has said.
It appears to contradict Mr Trump, who said he did not know about the payment made by lawyer Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.
Mr Trump has denied Ms Daniels' claims of an affair in 2006.
Mr Giuliani said no campaign finance was used, a key issue in the matter.
Should Trump be worried about Stormy Daniels?
The president and the porn star: Why this matters
What did Mr Giuliani say and why?
The former New York City mayor recently joined Mr Trump's legal team and was talking to Sean Hannity on Fox News.
The campaign finance issue appeared to be one his main motives for appearing on the programme - to deny that there was any wrongdoing.
Fox News
✔
@FoxNews
Rudy Giuliani: #Trump repaid Cohen for Stormy Daniels payment https://fxn.ws/2Ks5j7L
1:10 PM - May 3, 2018
Mr Cohen's $130,000 (£95,650) payment to Ms Daniels just before the 2016 election could count as an illegal contribution to President Trump's campaign.
Mr Giuliani said: "That money was not campaign money. Sorry, I'm giving you a fact now that you don't know. It's not campaign money. No campaign finance violation.
"They funnelled it through a law firm and the president repaid it."
He added that the president "didn't know about the specifics of it, as far as I know, but he did know about the general arrangement that Michael would take care of things like this".
Mr Giuliani later spoke to the New York Times, saying: "Some time after the campaign is over, they set up a reimbursement, $35,000 a month, out of his personal family account." The sum paid was $460,000-$470,000, including expenses, he said.
He also said Mr Trump was aware of what he was going to say on Fox News.
What are the issues over campaign finance?
US federal law restricts how much individuals and organisations can contribute to campaign financing and there are also strict regulations on the disclosure of the financing.
The first question is whether the payment to Ms Daniels was campaign related. Legal expert Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post: "If the purpose of this was to stop [Daniels] from hurting the campaign, then what you have is Cohen made a loan to the campaign."
The $130,000 would exceed the amount an individual can donate to a presidential campaign.
Image copyrightAFP
Image caption
Michael Cohen is facing a criminal investigation over the matter
Any repayment by the Trump campaign would violate the law.
But presidential candidates are allowed to contribute an unlimited amount to their own campaign. Mr Trump may be arguing, through Mr Giuliani, that the personal nature of the repayment makes it legal.
However, if the $130,000 is deemed to have been a loan, the president could face questions as to why his personal financial disclosure form from June 2017 made no mention of any debt to Mr Cohen.
Ms Daniels' lawyer said it would need to be determined whether the payment was hidden in such a way as to violate anti-money laundering statutes.
So does this contradict the president?
When asked by reporters a month ago if he knew about the payment to Ms Daniels, Mr Trump said: "No."
When asked why the payment was given to Ms Daniels, he added: "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen."
The president might argue that the lawyer "took care of things like this", as Mr Giuliani suggested and that he knew nothing of the "specifics", making the repayment personally later.
Mr Giuliani told the Times he did not know whether Mr Trump was aware of the payment to Ms Daniels at the time but his understanding was that the president had only learned about it recently. It is unclear how this fits with his statement that repayments were made over several months.
Speaking on Fox TV last week, Mr Trump suggested some knowledge of the matter in admitting Mr Cohen had represented him during the "crazy Stormy Daniels deal", but did not go into specifics.
Mr Cohen, for his part, told the New York Times in February: "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly."
How this relates to any personal repayments by Mr Trump is unclear.
What has been the reaction?
Ms Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, said that Americans "should be outraged" at Mr Giuliani's comments.
"We predicted months ago that it would be proven that the American people had been lied to as to the $130k payment and what Mr Trump knew," he wrote on Twitter.
He told Associated Press: "Mr Trump evidently has participated in a felony and there must be serious consequences for his conduct and his lies and deception to the American people," he said.
Stormy clouds not going away
Analysis by BBC's Anthony Zurcher in Washington
There are two ways to look at Rudy Giuliani's blockbuster revelation that Donald Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for his $130,000 payment.
The first is that the former New York mayor was freelancing and caught the president and the White House communications team flatfooted. In that case, Mr Giuliani's brief return to the political spotlight will be short-lived.
The other possibility is that this was a pre-planned revelation in the friendly confines of Sean Hannity's Fox News talk show. Some in the White House may have been caught by surprise, but there was a strategy in play. Perhaps Mr Giuliani and the president decided that the legal exposure from hiding that Mr Trump made the payment was more dangerous than the political risk from admitting he cut the cheque and lied about it.
Mr Trump has proven bulletproof when it comes to most political scandals and this one may prove no different, although the Stormy saga has proven to have staying power. Even with the revelation, the president and Mr Cohen's payment may still constitute a campaign finance law violation.
The Stormy clouds aren't going away.
How did the payment come about and what has happened since?
The payment relates to allegations by Ms Daniels that she had sex with Mr Trump in 2006, allegations he denies.
After initially denying the payment, Mr Cohen eventually admitted he had paid the sum privately to Ms Daniels, real name Stephanie Clifford, in October 2016 out of his own funds in exchange for her silence in a non-disclosure agreement.
Stormy Daniels: "I was threatened"
He denied that Mr Trump was a party to the transaction.
Mr Cohen is now facing a criminal investigation. FBI agents searched his home and office in New York recently in relation to the nondisclosure agreement.
In March this year, Ms Daniels filed a lawsuit against the president, alleging that the agreement was invalid because Mr Trump did not sign it.
She later lost a court motion for Mr Trump to give sworn testimony about her claim that they had a relationship.
While Mr Trump has denied her claims, his lawyers are seeking $20m in damages from Ms Daniels, arguing she broke the non-disclosure deal.
Ms Daniels is also suing the president over a "defamatory" tweet he posted after she said she was threatened by a man in a Las Vegas car park to drop her allegations of the affair.
Mr Trump said her claims were "a total con job".
Starbucks race row: Black men arrested in Philadelphia cafe settle for $1 - BBC News
Starbucks race row: Black men arrested in Philadelphia cafe settle for $1
2 May 2018
Rashon Nelson (L) and Donte Robinson (R) will each receive $1 and a promise from the city to set up a youth programme
Two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks cafe by Philadelphia police last month have reached a financial settlement with the city.
Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson will each receive a symbolic $1 and a promise from officials to set up a programme for young entrepreneurs.
The arrest of the men, who had not yet ordered and were waiting for a friend, kicked off a row over racial profiling.
Starbucks announced days later it would require employee anti-bias training.
Watch the arrest of two black men at Starbucks - and the protests that followed
The settlement, which was confirmed to BBC News by a spokesman for Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenny, includes a vow from the city to contribute $200,000 (£147,000) to the new programme.
The grant money will go towards creating a pilot programme "for city public high school students with aspirations of becoming entrepreneurs, as envisioned by Robinson and Nelson, who will not receive any money from the grant", the city announced in a press release.
The 12 April arrest led to protests at Starbucks cafes around the country, while other customers shared claims of racial profiling by company staff.
The arrest was captured on mobile phone video and showed the men being led away in handcuffs after a manager had accused them of trespassing and causing a disturbance.
Starbucks shuts US cafes for race training
'This is an America thing, not Starbucks'
Starbucks 'sorry' over black men arrest
The two longtime friends, both 23, had just sat down at the coffee chain's downtown location for a meeting to discuss a possible real estate deal.
After spending hours in jail, they were released and no charges were filed.
The Philadelphia chief of police later apologised for his handling of the arrest.
Mayor Kenney said in a statement that he was "pleased to have resolved the potential claims against the city in this productive manner".
"This was an incident that evoked a lot of pain in our city," he continued.
Starbucks race row leaves customers with a bitter aftertaste
"Rather than spending time, money, and resources to engage in a potentially adversarial process, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson approached the city and invited us to partner with them in an attempt to make something positive come of this.
"This agreement is the result of those conversations, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of this effort in the coming months and years."
Brandon Ward’s video of his encounter at a Starbucks has gone viral
Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson came to Philadelphia to personally apologise to the two men.
In a joint statement with Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson, Starbucks announced that it had reached a separate financial settlement with the men earlier this week.
That confidential settlement "will allow both sides to move forward and continue to talk and explore means of preventing similar occurrences at any Starbucks locations", the statement said.
Mr Johnson added that he wishes to "thank Donte and Rashon for their willingness to reconcile".
Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson jointly said they appreciate the effort to foster communication, and add "we will be measured by our action not words".
As part of the settlement both men have been offered university scholarships by Starbucks, and the opportunity to meet former US Attorney Eric Holder, who has been hired "as part of the company's long-term diversity and equity efforts".
The company plans to close more than 8,000 stores in the US on 29 May for anti-bias training.
2 May 2018
Rashon Nelson (L) and Donte Robinson (R) will each receive $1 and a promise from the city to set up a youth programme
Two black men who were arrested at a Starbucks cafe by Philadelphia police last month have reached a financial settlement with the city.
Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson will each receive a symbolic $1 and a promise from officials to set up a programme for young entrepreneurs.
The arrest of the men, who had not yet ordered and were waiting for a friend, kicked off a row over racial profiling.
Starbucks announced days later it would require employee anti-bias training.
Watch the arrest of two black men at Starbucks - and the protests that followed
The settlement, which was confirmed to BBC News by a spokesman for Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenny, includes a vow from the city to contribute $200,000 (£147,000) to the new programme.
The grant money will go towards creating a pilot programme "for city public high school students with aspirations of becoming entrepreneurs, as envisioned by Robinson and Nelson, who will not receive any money from the grant", the city announced in a press release.
The 12 April arrest led to protests at Starbucks cafes around the country, while other customers shared claims of racial profiling by company staff.
The arrest was captured on mobile phone video and showed the men being led away in handcuffs after a manager had accused them of trespassing and causing a disturbance.
Starbucks shuts US cafes for race training
'This is an America thing, not Starbucks'
Starbucks 'sorry' over black men arrest
The two longtime friends, both 23, had just sat down at the coffee chain's downtown location for a meeting to discuss a possible real estate deal.
After spending hours in jail, they were released and no charges were filed.
The Philadelphia chief of police later apologised for his handling of the arrest.
Mayor Kenney said in a statement that he was "pleased to have resolved the potential claims against the city in this productive manner".
"This was an incident that evoked a lot of pain in our city," he continued.
Starbucks race row leaves customers with a bitter aftertaste
"Rather than spending time, money, and resources to engage in a potentially adversarial process, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson approached the city and invited us to partner with them in an attempt to make something positive come of this.
"This agreement is the result of those conversations, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of this effort in the coming months and years."
Brandon Ward’s video of his encounter at a Starbucks has gone viral
Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson came to Philadelphia to personally apologise to the two men.
In a joint statement with Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson, Starbucks announced that it had reached a separate financial settlement with the men earlier this week.
That confidential settlement "will allow both sides to move forward and continue to talk and explore means of preventing similar occurrences at any Starbucks locations", the statement said.
Mr Johnson added that he wishes to "thank Donte and Rashon for their willingness to reconcile".
Mr Nelson and Mr Robinson jointly said they appreciate the effort to foster communication, and add "we will be measured by our action not words".
As part of the settlement both men have been offered university scholarships by Starbucks, and the opportunity to meet former US Attorney Eric Holder, who has been hired "as part of the company's long-term diversity and equity efforts".
The company plans to close more than 8,000 stores in the US on 29 May for anti-bias training.
Cambridge Analytica: Facebook data-harvest firm to shut - BBC News
May 3, 2018
Cambridge Analytica: Facebook data-harvest firm to shut
Cambridge Analytica's name has already been taken down from the wall of the London office it occupied
Cambridge Analytica, the political consultancy at the centre of the Facebook data-sharing scandal, is shutting down.
The firm was accused of improperly obtaining personal information on behalf of political clients.
According to Facebook, data about up to 87 million of its members was harvested by a quiz app and then passed on to the political consultancy.
The social network said its own probe into the matter would continue.
"This doesn't change our commitment and determination to understand exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again," said a spokesman.
"We are continuing with our investigation in cooperation with the relevant authorities."
What are the accusations against Cambridge Analytica?
The company has been accused of using the personal data of millions of Facebook users to sway the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election and the UK Brexit referendum.
Cambridge Analytica: The story so far
The global reach of Cambridge Analytica
In March, Channel 4 aired undercover footage of Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, giving examples of how the firm could swing elections around the world with underhand tactics such as smear campaigns and honey traps.
The UK-based company, which denies any wrongdoing, has an extensive record of working abroad on many election campaigns, including in Italy, Kenya and Nigeria.
Why does it is say it is shutting?
Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for Cambridge Analytica, referred the BBC to a statement on the firm's website.
"Over the past several months, Cambridge Analytica has been the subject of numerous unfounded accusations and, despite the company's efforts to correct the record, has been vilified for activities that are not only legal, but also widely accepted as a standard component of online advertising in both the political and commercial arenas," it said.
"Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully... the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers.
"As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business."
Zuckerberg faces formal summons from MPs
Was Facebook data's value 'literally nothing'?
'Facebook in PR crisis mode''
The statement added that its parent company SCL Elections was also commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended two months ago
The sting in the tail
By the BBC's technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, in California
When the news of Cambridge Analytica's demise broke here at Facebook's F8 developer conference, it is safe to say few tears were shed.
The scandal over data misuse has been a crisis not just for Facebook but for the thousands of external developers whose access to data has been curbed in response to the affair.
But if they were tempted to celebrate there was a sting in the tail in the political consultancy's statement. It claimed that what it did was not only legal but was standard practice in the world of online advertising.
That rang true to some people in this world and there may be more evidence of such practices as Facebook continues its audit of apps.
Cambridge Analytica may be gone but as more stones are lifted there may be more unpleasant surprises to come about the use and misuse of personal data.
Is this the end?
The UK's Financial Times newspaper says it has spoken to another ex-employee of Cambridge Analytica, on condition of anonymity, who said they were sure the company would emerge "in some other incarnation or guise".
The Observer journalist whose investigation first exposed the data privacy scandal has suggested that the public remain sceptical.
Carole Cadwalladr
✔
@carolecadwalla
Remember. SCL & Cambridge Analytica are disinformation specialists. What exactly are they shutting down & why?
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:31 AM - May 3, 2018
The chair of a UK parliament committee investigating the firm's activities also raised concerns about Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections' move.
"They are party to very serious investigations and those investigations cannot be impeded by the closure of these companies," said Damian Collins MP.
"I think it's absolutely vital that the closure of these companies is not used as an excuse to try and limit or restrict the ability of the authorities to investigate what they were doing."
Skip Twitter post by @DamianCollins
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:12 AM - May 3, 2018
What action had it taken already?
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended in March after the Channel 4 News footage was aired.
Last month, Cambridge Analytica said it had only licensed 30 million records belonging to US citizens from the quiz app's creator Dr Aleksandr Kogan, and that they had not been used in the US presidential election.
The firm added that it had since deleted all the information despite claims to the contrary by others.
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has said the privacy scandal was a "breach of trust"
Who funded Cambridge Analytica?
One of Cambridge Analytica's major investors is the US hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.
He is said to have put $15m (£11m) into the business, according to the Guardian.
Mr Mercer, a former computer scientist, is also a major donor to the US Republican Party and helped support Donald Trump's election campaign.
He has never given an interview about his political views and is not thought to have commented publicly about the data-harvesting scandal.
What is the Brexit link?
Earlier on Wednesday, a cyber-security specialist presented evidence to the UK parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Chris Vickery linked SCL and Cambridge Analytica to AggregateIQ - a Canadian data analytics firm, which Facebook has also suspended from using its platform.
He added that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" AggregateIQ had been involved in "some form of collaboration or co-ordination" between various pro-Brexit groups during the UK's EU referendum campaign.
AIQ denies ever being part of Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL or accessing improperly obtained Facebook data.
And representatives from Vote Leave and Leave.EU have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
But the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner's Office are conducting their own investigations into the Canadian firm's operations.
The ICO has also issued a statement about Cambridge Analytica's closure.
"The ICO will continue its civil and criminal investigations and will seek to pursue individuals and directors as appropriate and necessary even where companies may no longer be operating," it said.
"We will also monitor closely any successor companies using our powers to audit and inspect, to ensure the public is safeguarded."
How the scandal unfolded
17 March: The Observer and the New York Times publish accounts by Cambridge Analytica's ex-employee Christopher Wylie, saying 50 million Facebook accounts were improperly harvested by the company
23 March: The UK's data watchdog is granted a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's office
27 March: Christopher Wylie appears in front of a committee of UK MPs
4 April: Facebook says it now believes up to 87 million people's data was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica
10 April: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is questioned by US lawmakers about the scandal
17 April: Alexander Nix, the former boss of Cambridge Analytica, refuses to appear before British MPs
26 April: The UK parliamentary committee threatens to issue Mark Zuckerberg with a "formal summons for him to appear when he is next in the UK" as questions remain unanswered
2 May: Cambridge Analytica announces its closure
Cambridge Analytica: Facebook data-harvest firm to shut
Cambridge Analytica's name has already been taken down from the wall of the London office it occupied
Cambridge Analytica, the political consultancy at the centre of the Facebook data-sharing scandal, is shutting down.
The firm was accused of improperly obtaining personal information on behalf of political clients.
According to Facebook, data about up to 87 million of its members was harvested by a quiz app and then passed on to the political consultancy.
The social network said its own probe into the matter would continue.
"This doesn't change our commitment and determination to understand exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again," said a spokesman.
"We are continuing with our investigation in cooperation with the relevant authorities."
What are the accusations against Cambridge Analytica?
The company has been accused of using the personal data of millions of Facebook users to sway the outcome of the US 2016 presidential election and the UK Brexit referendum.
Cambridge Analytica: The story so far
The global reach of Cambridge Analytica
In March, Channel 4 aired undercover footage of Cambridge Analytica's CEO, Alexander Nix, giving examples of how the firm could swing elections around the world with underhand tactics such as smear campaigns and honey traps.
The UK-based company, which denies any wrongdoing, has an extensive record of working abroad on many election campaigns, including in Italy, Kenya and Nigeria.
Why does it is say it is shutting?
Clarence Mitchell, a spokesman for Cambridge Analytica, referred the BBC to a statement on the firm's website.
"Over the past several months, Cambridge Analytica has been the subject of numerous unfounded accusations and, despite the company's efforts to correct the record, has been vilified for activities that are not only legal, but also widely accepted as a standard component of online advertising in both the political and commercial arenas," it said.
"Despite Cambridge Analytica's unwavering confidence that its employees have acted ethically and lawfully... the siege of media coverage has driven away virtually all of the company's customers and suppliers.
"As a result, it has been determined that it is no longer viable to continue operating the business."
Zuckerberg faces formal summons from MPs
Was Facebook data's value 'literally nothing'?
'Facebook in PR crisis mode''
The statement added that its parent company SCL Elections was also commencing bankruptcy proceedings.
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended two months ago
The sting in the tail
By the BBC's technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones, in California
When the news of Cambridge Analytica's demise broke here at Facebook's F8 developer conference, it is safe to say few tears were shed.
The scandal over data misuse has been a crisis not just for Facebook but for the thousands of external developers whose access to data has been curbed in response to the affair.
But if they were tempted to celebrate there was a sting in the tail in the political consultancy's statement. It claimed that what it did was not only legal but was standard practice in the world of online advertising.
That rang true to some people in this world and there may be more evidence of such practices as Facebook continues its audit of apps.
Cambridge Analytica may be gone but as more stones are lifted there may be more unpleasant surprises to come about the use and misuse of personal data.
Is this the end?
The UK's Financial Times newspaper says it has spoken to another ex-employee of Cambridge Analytica, on condition of anonymity, who said they were sure the company would emerge "in some other incarnation or guise".
The Observer journalist whose investigation first exposed the data privacy scandal has suggested that the public remain sceptical.
Carole Cadwalladr
✔
@carolecadwalla
Remember. SCL & Cambridge Analytica are disinformation specialists. What exactly are they shutting down & why?
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:31 AM - May 3, 2018
The chair of a UK parliament committee investigating the firm's activities also raised concerns about Cambridge Analytica and SCL Elections' move.
"They are party to very serious investigations and those investigations cannot be impeded by the closure of these companies," said Damian Collins MP.
"I think it's absolutely vital that the closure of these companies is not used as an excuse to try and limit or restrict the ability of the authorities to investigate what they were doing."
Skip Twitter post by @DamianCollins
Damian Collins
✔
@DamianCollins
Cambridge Analytica and SCL group cannot be allowed to delete their data history by closing. The investigations into their work are vital
5:12 AM - May 3, 2018
What action had it taken already?
Cambridge Analytica's chief executive Alexander Nix was suspended in March after the Channel 4 News footage was aired.
Last month, Cambridge Analytica said it had only licensed 30 million records belonging to US citizens from the quiz app's creator Dr Aleksandr Kogan, and that they had not been used in the US presidential election.
The firm added that it had since deleted all the information despite claims to the contrary by others.
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has said the privacy scandal was a "breach of trust"
Who funded Cambridge Analytica?
One of Cambridge Analytica's major investors is the US hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer.
He is said to have put $15m (£11m) into the business, according to the Guardian.
Mr Mercer, a former computer scientist, is also a major donor to the US Republican Party and helped support Donald Trump's election campaign.
He has never given an interview about his political views and is not thought to have commented publicly about the data-harvesting scandal.
What is the Brexit link?
Earlier on Wednesday, a cyber-security specialist presented evidence to the UK parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Chris Vickery linked SCL and Cambridge Analytica to AggregateIQ - a Canadian data analytics firm, which Facebook has also suspended from using its platform.
He added that "beyond a shadow of a doubt" AggregateIQ had been involved in "some form of collaboration or co-ordination" between various pro-Brexit groups during the UK's EU referendum campaign.
AIQ denies ever being part of Cambridge Analytica, its parent company SCL or accessing improperly obtained Facebook data.
And representatives from Vote Leave and Leave.EU have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
But the Electoral Commission and Information Commissioner's Office are conducting their own investigations into the Canadian firm's operations.
The ICO has also issued a statement about Cambridge Analytica's closure.
"The ICO will continue its civil and criminal investigations and will seek to pursue individuals and directors as appropriate and necessary even where companies may no longer be operating," it said.
"We will also monitor closely any successor companies using our powers to audit and inspect, to ensure the public is safeguarded."
How the scandal unfolded
17 March: The Observer and the New York Times publish accounts by Cambridge Analytica's ex-employee Christopher Wylie, saying 50 million Facebook accounts were improperly harvested by the company
23 March: The UK's data watchdog is granted a warrant to search Cambridge Analytica's office
27 March: Christopher Wylie appears in front of a committee of UK MPs
4 April: Facebook says it now believes up to 87 million people's data was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica
10 April: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is questioned by US lawmakers about the scandal
17 April: Alexander Nix, the former boss of Cambridge Analytica, refuses to appear before British MPs
26 April: The UK parliamentary committee threatens to issue Mark Zuckerberg with a "formal summons for him to appear when he is next in the UK" as questions remain unanswered
2 May: Cambridge Analytica announces its closure
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Google leadership coach: The best way to attract high-performing employees doesn't cost a dime - CNBC News
May 2, 2018
Google leadership coach: The best way to attract high-performing employees doesn't cost a dime
Zameena Mejia
GOOGLE CANADA OFFICE
Free meals, dog-friendly workplaces and other fun perks are becoming increasingly common at companies trying to attract top talent.
But according to Google leadership development advisor Fred Kofman, there is still one thing that more companies need to offer — and it doesn't cost a dime.
"Any company that can provide a sense of meaning, purpose and happiness will be able to attract great talent," Kofman tells CNBC Make It.
Kofman, who previously worked in executive development at LinkedIn and is the author of new book "The Meaning Revolution," coaches Google executives on being more adaptable, innovative and inspiring for the teams they lead.
In his book, Kofman says people "need to be inspired to contribute their best toward the organizational goals," yet over two-thirds of workers are disengaged at work. He argues that people don't just want bigger paychecks; they want to feel their work has purpose.
Although most employers help their workers meet their basic human needs — food, shelter, safety and health — Kofman says they need to do more, for both their employees' sake and their investors' sake.
"If you just pay [workers], you're going to get the minimum discretionary effort; they'll just work for the pay," Kofman said on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Tuesday. "But if you want them to pour their hearts and souls, you need to give them more."
More workers search for ‘meaning’ rather than higher pay, author says
Today's professionals in the U.S. are "generally doing economically okay," Kofman says. But as they make more money and material benefits become more commonplace — such as medical insurance, 401k matching contributions and paid time off — workers want companies to invest in non-material benefits as well.
"We're talking about better colleagues, better work culture, more autonomy, more camaraderie around the office, not just a cool recreational room or free snacks," Kofman says. "At some point, even great material benefits will get to the point of satiation, but the desire to grow professionally, find meaning in your life and feel happier can be limitless."
Other non-material benefits that don't have a price tag include creating an inspiring workplace for employees, offering personal development and ensuring growth opportunities.
"That all adds up to a sense of purpose and a sense of pride for working in a place that is recognized for its goodness," Kofman says.
Companies that are already succeeding at providing their employees with a greater sense of purpose include Facebook, LinkedIn and Google, Kofman notes, but you don't need to work at a big company to seek out meaning and purpose through your work.
"Demand that your company provide a meaningful project for you to engage in and don't compromise," Kofman says. "You have the right to work at a place where you can grow, find meaning and have a significant impact on the world."
Google leadership coach: The best way to attract high-performing employees doesn't cost a dime
Zameena Mejia
GOOGLE CANADA OFFICE
Free meals, dog-friendly workplaces and other fun perks are becoming increasingly common at companies trying to attract top talent.
But according to Google leadership development advisor Fred Kofman, there is still one thing that more companies need to offer — and it doesn't cost a dime.
"Any company that can provide a sense of meaning, purpose and happiness will be able to attract great talent," Kofman tells CNBC Make It.
Kofman, who previously worked in executive development at LinkedIn and is the author of new book "The Meaning Revolution," coaches Google executives on being more adaptable, innovative and inspiring for the teams they lead.
In his book, Kofman says people "need to be inspired to contribute their best toward the organizational goals," yet over two-thirds of workers are disengaged at work. He argues that people don't just want bigger paychecks; they want to feel their work has purpose.
Although most employers help their workers meet their basic human needs — food, shelter, safety and health — Kofman says they need to do more, for both their employees' sake and their investors' sake.
"If you just pay [workers], you're going to get the minimum discretionary effort; they'll just work for the pay," Kofman said on CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Tuesday. "But if you want them to pour their hearts and souls, you need to give them more."
More workers search for ‘meaning’ rather than higher pay, author says
Today's professionals in the U.S. are "generally doing economically okay," Kofman says. But as they make more money and material benefits become more commonplace — such as medical insurance, 401k matching contributions and paid time off — workers want companies to invest in non-material benefits as well.
"We're talking about better colleagues, better work culture, more autonomy, more camaraderie around the office, not just a cool recreational room or free snacks," Kofman says. "At some point, even great material benefits will get to the point of satiation, but the desire to grow professionally, find meaning in your life and feel happier can be limitless."
Other non-material benefits that don't have a price tag include creating an inspiring workplace for employees, offering personal development and ensuring growth opportunities.
"That all adds up to a sense of purpose and a sense of pride for working in a place that is recognized for its goodness," Kofman says.
Companies that are already succeeding at providing their employees with a greater sense of purpose include Facebook, LinkedIn and Google, Kofman notes, but you don't need to work at a big company to seek out meaning and purpose through your work.
"Demand that your company provide a meaningful project for you to engage in and don't compromise," Kofman says. "You have the right to work at a place where you can grow, find meaning and have a significant impact on the world."
David Goodall: Scientist, 104, begins trip to end his life - BBC News
May 2, 2018
David Goodall: Scientist, 104, begins trip to end his life
By Frances Mao
BBC News, Sydney
David Goodall says he wants to end his life with dignity
On Wednesday, 104-year-old scientist David Goodall bid farewell to his home in Australia to fly across the world to end his life.
The lauded ecologist and botanist is not suffering from a serious illness but wishes to bring forward his death. Key to his decision, he says, has been his diminishing independence.
"I greatly regret having reached that age," Dr Goodall said on his birthday last month, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
"I'm not happy. I want to die. It's not sad particularly. What is sad is if one is prevented."
Assisted dying was legalised by one Australian state last year following a divisive debate, but eligibility requires a person be terminally ill. It is illegal in other states.
Dr Goodall says he will travel to a clinic in Switzerland to voluntarily end his life. However, he says he resents having to leave Australia to do so.
Active life
The London-born academic had lived on his own in a small flat in Perth, Western Australia, until only a few weeks ago.
He stepped back from full-time employment in 1979, but remained heavily involved in his field of work.
Among his achievements in recent years, Dr Goodall edited a 30-volume book series called Ecosystems of the World and was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his scientific work.
In 2016, aged 102, he won a battle to keeping working on campus at Perth's Edith Cowan University, where he was an unpaid honorary research associate.
Accompanying Dr Goodall on his journey out of Australia on Wednesday was his friend, Carol O'Neill, a representative from assisted dying advocacy group Exit International.
Image copyrightEXIT INTERNATIONAL
Image caption
Carol O'Neill is accompanying Dr Goodall on his trip to Europe
Mrs O'Neill said the dispute in 2016 over Dr Goodall's working space had affected him greatly. The row began when the university raised concerns about his safety, including his ability to commute.
Although Dr Goodall ultimately prevailed, he was forced to work in a location closer to home. It came at a time when he was also forced to give up driving and performing in theatre, Mrs O'Neill said.
"It was just the beginning of the end," she told the BBC.
"He didn't get to see the same colleagues and friends any more at the old office. He just didn't have the same spirit and he was packing up all his books. It was the beginning of not being happy any more."
Dr Goodall's decision to end his life was hastened by a serious fall in his apartment last month. He was not found for two days. Later, doctors said he needed to engage 24-hour care or be moved into a nursing home.
"He's an independent man. He doesn't want people around him all the time, a stranger acting as a carer. He doesn't want that," Mrs O'Neill said.
"He wants to have intelligent conversation and still be able to do the same things like catching the bus into town."
Divisive debate
Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942. Other countries and jurisdictions have passed laws allowing people to voluntarily end their life, but many state terminal illness as a condition of eligibility.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) remains strongly opposed to assisted dying, which it sees as an unethical practice of medicine.
Where else is assisted dying allowed?
Assisted suicide describes any act that intentionally helps another person kill themselves, for example by providing them with the means to do so, most commonly by prescribing a lethal medication.
It differs from euthanasia, which is a third-party intervention to end a life to relieve suffering, such as when a doctor administers the lethal dose.
In Switzerland, assisted suicide is allowed only if the person assisting acts unselfishly. It is the only country with centres offering assisted suicide to foreign nationals
The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg permit euthanasia and assisted suicide. In the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia is available to minors in specific instances
Colombia allows euthanasia
Six US states - Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, California and Colorado - permit assisted dying for terminally ill patients. The US capital Washington DC implemented a similar law for the city's residents in 2017
Canada followed the province of Quebec in permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016
"Doctors are not trained to kill people. It is deep within our ethics, deep within our training that that's not appropriate," president Dr Michael Gannon said during last year's legislative debate in the state of Victoria.
"Now, not every doctor agrees with that," he added. Indeed, a survey of the AMA - Australia's most influential medical association - found four in 10 members supported right-to-die policies.
What different countries say about assisted dying
Man 'best judge' of 'undignified death'
Mrs O'Neill said Dr Goodall's main desire was to die peacefully and with dignity.
"He's not depressed or miserable, but there's just not that little spark that was there a couple of years ago," she said.
Dr Goodall will be joined in Switzerland by close relatives
An online petition raised $A20,000 (£11,000; $15,000) for the scientist to fly in business class to Europe. He will visit family in France before heading to Switzerland with his closest relatives.
"They [my family] realise how unsatisfactory my life here is, unsatisfactory in almost every respect," Dr Goodall told the ABC. "The sooner it comes to an end, the better."
Mrs O'Neill said he had spent recent days revising his final letters and holding conversations with his extended family, including his many grandchildren.
Dr Goodall's story has gained attention locally at a time when his home state, Western Australia, considers whether to debate assisted dying legislation.
The state government has publicly expressed sympathy for Dr Goodall, but said any proposed legislation would cover only terminally ill patients.
"My feeling is that an old person like myself should have full citizenship rights including the right of assisted suicide," Dr Goodall said last month.
He told ABC he hoped the public would understand his decision, saying: "If one chooses to kill oneself then that's fair enough. I don't think anyone else should interfere."
David Goodall: Scientist, 104, begins trip to end his life
By Frances Mao
BBC News, Sydney
David Goodall says he wants to end his life with dignity
On Wednesday, 104-year-old scientist David Goodall bid farewell to his home in Australia to fly across the world to end his life.
The lauded ecologist and botanist is not suffering from a serious illness but wishes to bring forward his death. Key to his decision, he says, has been his diminishing independence.
"I greatly regret having reached that age," Dr Goodall said on his birthday last month, in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
"I'm not happy. I want to die. It's not sad particularly. What is sad is if one is prevented."
Assisted dying was legalised by one Australian state last year following a divisive debate, but eligibility requires a person be terminally ill. It is illegal in other states.
Dr Goodall says he will travel to a clinic in Switzerland to voluntarily end his life. However, he says he resents having to leave Australia to do so.
Active life
The London-born academic had lived on his own in a small flat in Perth, Western Australia, until only a few weeks ago.
He stepped back from full-time employment in 1979, but remained heavily involved in his field of work.
Among his achievements in recent years, Dr Goodall edited a 30-volume book series called Ecosystems of the World and was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his scientific work.
In 2016, aged 102, he won a battle to keeping working on campus at Perth's Edith Cowan University, where he was an unpaid honorary research associate.
Accompanying Dr Goodall on his journey out of Australia on Wednesday was his friend, Carol O'Neill, a representative from assisted dying advocacy group Exit International.
Image copyrightEXIT INTERNATIONAL
Image caption
Carol O'Neill is accompanying Dr Goodall on his trip to Europe
Mrs O'Neill said the dispute in 2016 over Dr Goodall's working space had affected him greatly. The row began when the university raised concerns about his safety, including his ability to commute.
Although Dr Goodall ultimately prevailed, he was forced to work in a location closer to home. It came at a time when he was also forced to give up driving and performing in theatre, Mrs O'Neill said.
"It was just the beginning of the end," she told the BBC.
"He didn't get to see the same colleagues and friends any more at the old office. He just didn't have the same spirit and he was packing up all his books. It was the beginning of not being happy any more."
Dr Goodall's decision to end his life was hastened by a serious fall in his apartment last month. He was not found for two days. Later, doctors said he needed to engage 24-hour care or be moved into a nursing home.
"He's an independent man. He doesn't want people around him all the time, a stranger acting as a carer. He doesn't want that," Mrs O'Neill said.
"He wants to have intelligent conversation and still be able to do the same things like catching the bus into town."
Divisive debate
Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942. Other countries and jurisdictions have passed laws allowing people to voluntarily end their life, but many state terminal illness as a condition of eligibility.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) remains strongly opposed to assisted dying, which it sees as an unethical practice of medicine.
Where else is assisted dying allowed?
Assisted suicide describes any act that intentionally helps another person kill themselves, for example by providing them with the means to do so, most commonly by prescribing a lethal medication.
It differs from euthanasia, which is a third-party intervention to end a life to relieve suffering, such as when a doctor administers the lethal dose.
In Switzerland, assisted suicide is allowed only if the person assisting acts unselfishly. It is the only country with centres offering assisted suicide to foreign nationals
The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg permit euthanasia and assisted suicide. In the Netherlands and Belgium, euthanasia is available to minors in specific instances
Colombia allows euthanasia
Six US states - Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana, California and Colorado - permit assisted dying for terminally ill patients. The US capital Washington DC implemented a similar law for the city's residents in 2017
Canada followed the province of Quebec in permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016
"Doctors are not trained to kill people. It is deep within our ethics, deep within our training that that's not appropriate," president Dr Michael Gannon said during last year's legislative debate in the state of Victoria.
"Now, not every doctor agrees with that," he added. Indeed, a survey of the AMA - Australia's most influential medical association - found four in 10 members supported right-to-die policies.
What different countries say about assisted dying
Man 'best judge' of 'undignified death'
Mrs O'Neill said Dr Goodall's main desire was to die peacefully and with dignity.
"He's not depressed or miserable, but there's just not that little spark that was there a couple of years ago," she said.
Dr Goodall will be joined in Switzerland by close relatives
An online petition raised $A20,000 (£11,000; $15,000) for the scientist to fly in business class to Europe. He will visit family in France before heading to Switzerland with his closest relatives.
"They [my family] realise how unsatisfactory my life here is, unsatisfactory in almost every respect," Dr Goodall told the ABC. "The sooner it comes to an end, the better."
Mrs O'Neill said he had spent recent days revising his final letters and holding conversations with his extended family, including his many grandchildren.
Dr Goodall's story has gained attention locally at a time when his home state, Western Australia, considers whether to debate assisted dying legislation.
The state government has publicly expressed sympathy for Dr Goodall, but said any proposed legislation would cover only terminally ill patients.
"My feeling is that an old person like myself should have full citizenship rights including the right of assisted suicide," Dr Goodall said last month.
He told ABC he hoped the public would understand his decision, saying: "If one chooses to kill oneself then that's fair enough. I don't think anyone else should interfere."
Fatal encounters: 97 deaths point to pattern of border agent violence across America - Guardian
Fatal encounters: 97 deaths point to pattern of border agent violence across America
In the last 15 years, agents with Customs and Border Protection have used deadly force in states up to 160 miles from the border, from Maine to California
by Sarah Macaraeg
Wed 2 May 2018 15.00 AEST
For six long years the family of Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez have been caught in a legal saga seeking justice for the 16-year-old who was killed by a US border patrol agent who fired 16 times from Arizona into Mexico.
Ending criminal proceedings that have dragged on since 2012, a jury last week cleared agent Lonnie Swartz of second-degree murder and could not agree on a verdict for two lesser charges of manslaughter. The shooting has compelled judges up to the US supreme court to deliberate whether the American government can be sued in civil court for wrongful deaths on Mexican soil – placing the incident, and eight other cross-border fatal shootings, at the center of scrutiny surrounding the use of force by agents in response to allegedly thrown rocks.
However, lesser known are similar shootings which have occurred inside the US. Such as that of Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera, who was shot and killed “execution-style”, in the language of a wrongful death complaint the government paid $850,000 to settle. An Arizona agent responding to an alert from the National Guard in 2007 alleged Rivera threatened him with a rock.
Ten years later, the Department of Justice settled another wrongful death claim involving a rock-throwing allegation in California for $500,000.
The shootings are only part of a larger litany of Customs and Border Protection agency-related violence inside the US. Encounters have proven deadly for at least 97 people – citizens and non-citizens – since 2003, a count drawn from settlement payment data, court records, use of force logs, incident reports and news articles.
From Maine to Washington state and California to Florida, the deaths stem from all manner of CBP activity. Border agents manning land crossings and a checkpoint have used deadly force, as have agents conducting roving patrols – up to 160 miles inland from the border.
Sign up for Guardian Today US edition: the day's must-reads sent directly to you
Read more
Pedestrians were run over by agents. Car chases culminated in crashes. Some have drowned, others died after they were pepper-sprayed, stunned with tasers or beaten.
But the majority of victims died from bullet wounds, including shots in the back. The bullets were fired not only by agents conducting border enforcement operations, but also those acting in a local law enforcement capacity and by agents off-duty, who’ve shot burglary suspects, intimate partners and friends.
Among the incidents, one agent also died following an exchange of gunfire with a family member who was found dead. Another agent was killed by friendly fire. Border agents sustained non-deadly shots in two incidents.
The picture compiled from official documents and news reports is incomplete, but indicates that at least 28 people who died were US citizens. Six children, between the ages of 12 and 16, were among the victims whose ages were disclosed.
The federal government has paid more than $9m to settle a fraction of the incidents thus far. A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson did not comment on those cases but pointed to the agency’s National Use of Force Review Board, which has investigated 30 significant incidents since June 2015. Each of its 17 reports made public have found the use of force to be compliant with agency policy in effect at the time. Local boards also review incidents, but only those that do not result in serious injury or death.
Here, the Guardian looks at eight fatal encounters with CBP agents that happened inside the United States and the larger patterns of incidents to which they relate.
Agents getting in harm’s way
Valeria Tachiquin Alvarado
Valeria Tachiquin Alvarado Composite: Southern Border Communities Coalition
A US citizen and mother of five, 32-year-old Valeria Munique Tachiquin Alvarado was shot and killed by Justin Tackett, a border patrol agent and former police officer, in a suburb of San Diego, California in the fall of 2012. At the time of press, a wrongful death suit filed by Alvarado’s family was nearing judgement after four years of litigation. According to court records Alvarado attempted to drive away from an apartment where Tackett and six other plainclothes agents had begun questioning her and others without a warrant.
After Tackett climbed on and then off the hood of Alvarado’s car, her family’s suit alleges, she attempted to reverse away from the agent, who fired at Alvarado 10 times, hitting her nine.
“A part of me was taken away and there hasn’t been justice,” Alvarado’s mother Annabell Gomez told Guardian. “Everyday I wish it was a dream, but I wake up and she’s not here. Life is not the same without her smile,” said Gomez. “She loved her kids and life.”
As a sheriff’s deputy in neighboring Imperial county in the years prior, Tackett was suspended four times following a string of incidents that took place in the span of 19 months, involving unlawful searches, illegal detentions and reckless behavior, before he resigned upon receiving a termination notice, court documents detail.
A review of 15 CBP shootings, each targeting the drivers of moving vehicles over the course of two years, was conducted the year after Alvarado’s death by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). A nonprofit overseen by a board of police chiefs, that was commissioned by CBP to study its use of force policy, PERF found that in many cases, border agents “intentionally put themselves in the exit path of the vehicle”, thereby “creating justification for the use of deadly force”, with some shots “taken out of frustration”.
Unreasonable force
Settled by the Department of Justice under attorney general Jeff Sessions for $500,000 in 2017, the shooting of 41-year-old unarmed father of two Julian Ramirez Galindo took place near the California border in February 2014. Agent Daniel Bassinger alleged that Galindo, who was a street musician in Tijuana, hurled a basketball-sized rock at him from above. But according to the family’s lawyer Scott Hughes, the medical examiner’s report is at odds with the agent’s version of events, detailing a man of slight stature who died from two downward trajectory bullet wounds.
PERF’s review of CBP’s use of force policy the year prior recommended a revision prohibiting deadly force against “subjects throwing objects not capable of causing serious physical injury or death”, citing that in some cases, “agents put themselves in harm’s way” instead of moving out of range. “Too many cases do not appear to meet the test of objective reasonableness,” the report notes, recommending corrective action be taken if agents use deadly force when alternative responses are possible.
Bassinger was back at work within six days, NBC San Diego reported. One month later, then CBP chief Michael Fisher enacted PERF’s recommendations. But the lawyer Hughes, a former military police officer, thinks the problem runs far deeper.
“We can no longer tolerate shooting unarmed people in the United States,” he told The Guardian. “These officers are woefully under-trained,” he said. “They find themselves in situations they don’t know how to react in and they resort to shooting their way out. When in fact, they really don’t need to.”
Shootings found to be justified
Jose Luis Arambula
Jose Luis Arambula Composite: Jose Luis Arambula/Eduardo Silva
In May 2014, unarmed 31-year-old Jose Luis Arambula died in a pecan grove in his native Arizona, shot behind his left ear. After bailing from a car later found to be filled with marijuana, Arambula ran from agents before one fired at him multiple times from a distance of 60-70ft, according to the local Pima county sheriff’s office, which investigated the shooting. That office, citing the agents’ account that Arambula made a “punching out” motion towards them, found deadly force to be justified. But in the view of lawyer Jesus Romo Vejar, who filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of Arambula’s mother, the scenario was quite different. “It was a bad shooting,” he said.
The case is among a set of shootings that have been dismissed on technicalities or in favor of the defendant agents, including suits filed by the family of unarmed 18-year-old citizen Juan Mendez, who was shot in the back from a distance while running from an agent in Texas in 2010; unarmed 20-year-old Gerardo Lozano Rico, who was also shot in Texas in a fleeing car in 2011; unarmed 19-year-old citizen Carlos Lamadrid, who was shot in the back while climbing a ladder at the border fence in Arizona in 2011.
In many cases, “the facts are favorable”, said the lawyer Vejar. “But the judges are not favorably deposed.”
Northern states
In one of at least eight fatal encounters in northern border states, 30-year-old Alex Martinez, a US citizen from Washington state who had a mental illness, was shot 13 times after his Spanish-speaking father called 911 in 2011, according to a complaint sent to the attorney general and secretary of homeland security in 2013. Describing the border patrol’s arrival alongside local law enforcement officers, Martinez’s father told local community organizers: “The first thing they asked was, ‘Is he from here or is he from Mexico?’” Local law enforcement alleged that Martinez hit a sheriff’s deputy with a hammer, reported a Washington newspaper. But his family disputed that account, saying that Martinez held a flashlight and tripped. “We saw it with our own eyes and without there being any need for it,” said his father. “They did something unjust. Something that should not be taken lightly,” he said. “And border patrol did it all.” The local sheriff’s office found the shooting to be justified.
An agent stationed in Michigan shot and killed a person at a card game while off duty. In Minnesota, a pedestrian died after a fatal accident involving a car driven by a border agent.
On-duty border agents serving as back-up to local law enforcement have shot and killed two people in separate incidents in Maine, both involving armed men of whom one fired at agents, according to the state’s attorney general which found the shootings to be justified.
In Montana, agents on patrol shot Jeff Suddeth, a US citizen who they said had a stun gun. At the inquest which cleared agents of wrongdoing, Suddeth’s mother, who described her son as bipolar, told local media: “He lived 36 years, and in 15 minutes they took his life. I guess that’s the law.”
Mural
Mural Photograph: c/o Border Patrol Victims Network
Unrelated to border enforcement
Steven Edward Martin
Steven Edward Martin Composite: Steven Edward Martin/Bobbi Felix
In an incident unrelated to immigration enforcement, 21-year-old US citizen Steven Martin was shot and killed in Yuma, Arizona in 2008. An agent was driving by the gas station, where Martin was parked, when a friend, who was black, allegedly ran out of the store holding two cases of beer. The agent fired on Martin’s car, according to a wrongful death suit filed by his mother. The suit also alleged that the agent did not subsequently request medical help for Martin, who was bleeding on the scene and died four hours later, on Christmas Eve. The case settled for $350,000 in 2013.
With the exception of “regulations prescribed by the attorney general”, border agents with reasonable grounds have the authority to make non-immigration arrests, “for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States”, under the Immigration and Nationality Act. No such regulations can be readily identified however, and the Department of Justice did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Every year over Memorial Day weekend, Martin’s family gathers to celebrate his memory. “My son was an amazing person who had a heart of gold,” his mother said. “He would give his last dollar to help someone out. He was a hard worker, spent his money on his cousins and sister and brother. He loved being around his nephew and would have loved to meet his nieces. There are still times I don’t know how I can go on without him.”
‘Non-lethal’ force
Picked up by agents more than 70 miles from the border, in Orange county, California, Tomas Orzuna was denied medical care after agents beat, pepper-sprayed and then handcuffed him in a suffocating, face-down position, according to a lawsuit brought by Orzuna’s parents, which does not specify his age.
Force considered non-lethal has proven otherwise in a variety of circumstances. A man was pepper-sprayed at the Rio Grande river and then drowned. A man was hit with a stun gun inside a rental car and it immediately exploded. Four men were Tasered or beaten in separate incidents and then died. Agents fired explosives at a boat filled with migrants and one woman drowned.
Deaths have also occurred through alleged neglect or malice. A mother and her 16-year-old daughter drowned after agents ordered them to swim back across the Rio Grande river. Another 16-year-old was compelled to drink liquid meth by agents, after telling them it was juice, and died. An on-site paramedic at a border patrol station assessed that a man in custody was faking a seizure, a report by the San Diego medical examiner’s office detailed, but he had ingested a packet of drugs and died after being left alone in his cell.
Among cases which have settled, payments vary widely. Orzuna’s parents received $15,000 in 2012. The family of Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas received a $1m settlement in 2017. Beaten and Tasered five times, at a land crossing in California, Hernandez-Rojas’ cries for help were captured on video.
High-speed crashes
Israel Caballero
Israel Caballero Composite: Israel Caballero/Bound Boxing Academy
In August 2017, 18-year-old Israel Caballero, a US citizen, was among three people killed in a crash following a high-speed border patrol pursuit outside of San Diego, California. Initially stating that a license plate check linked the car to a homicide, the border patrol has since said no one in the vehicle was wanted of any crimes. The father of a one-year-old, Caballero worked as a landscaper, following a stint of competitive boxing throughout his youth. “What happened to him was totally devastating,” coach Juan Medina said of the former champion. “Israel was a very respectful young man.”
The incident is the latest among a string of fatal crashes that raise questions about CBP’s stated vehicle pursuit policy, which dictates that agents can commence and continue emergency driving only as long as the benefits outweigh the immediate danger posed.
In an Arizona crash resulting in a $350,000 wrongful death settlement, a car flipped when agents in pursuit threw a tire deflation device in the road, killing a 40-year-old mother of three. In a Texas crash, an eyewitness testified in court that a CBP vehicle bumped into the van they were pursuing. The crash left bodies and personal belongings strewn across a highway, resulting in nine fatalities. “When it comes to human smuggling it becomes tough,” a Texas police chief told the AP regarding pursuits. “You do look at it in a way that these people were just trying to come here to have a better life,” he said.
Off-duty shootings
Shot by an off-duty CBP agent using his service weapon, 15-year-old Darius Smith died near a train station in a suburb of Los Angeles in May 2015. The Los Angeles county sheriff’s office said it would not release video of the incident, but that the video backed up the agent’s account that Smith and two other teens attempted to rob him. Conflicting details swirl around a bb gun investigators say they found “close by” Smith’s body – but was not spotted by a man who held the teen’s hand until paramedics arrived, the Los Angeles Times reported. A football player at his high school, Smith dreamed of making it to the NFL his mother told local media. “He always had a smile on his face,” said a friend who now plays college football, dedicating his games in Smith’s honor.
Border patrol violence: US paid $60m to cover claims against the agency
The incident is among ten off-duty shootings by CBP agents since 2005 identified by the Guardian.
Since early 2018, a Texas border patrol supervisor was charged with murdering his romantic partner and her one-year-old son. A CBP officer in Miami shot and killed a man who entered her home, suspected of burglary, and a Texas agent shot a man described as a childhood friend.
Previous years have seen the federal government pay a $750,000 settlement to the family of Bassim Chmait, a 20-year-old Arab American; and an agent was incarcerated after shooting 27-year-old Adam Thomas, a father of two. Both men were the neighbors of agents, while a number of other off-duty fatal shootings have involved intimate partner violence and domestic disputes.
The Guardian’s list of fatal encounters with CBP agents can be accessed here. This story is published in collaboration with the CJ Project. Reporter Sarah Macaraeg can be contacted at sarah.macaraeg@gmail.com.
In the last 15 years, agents with Customs and Border Protection have used deadly force in states up to 160 miles from the border, from Maine to California
by Sarah Macaraeg
Wed 2 May 2018 15.00 AEST
For six long years the family of Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez have been caught in a legal saga seeking justice for the 16-year-old who was killed by a US border patrol agent who fired 16 times from Arizona into Mexico.
Ending criminal proceedings that have dragged on since 2012, a jury last week cleared agent Lonnie Swartz of second-degree murder and could not agree on a verdict for two lesser charges of manslaughter. The shooting has compelled judges up to the US supreme court to deliberate whether the American government can be sued in civil court for wrongful deaths on Mexican soil – placing the incident, and eight other cross-border fatal shootings, at the center of scrutiny surrounding the use of force by agents in response to allegedly thrown rocks.
However, lesser known are similar shootings which have occurred inside the US. Such as that of Francisco Javier Dominguez Rivera, who was shot and killed “execution-style”, in the language of a wrongful death complaint the government paid $850,000 to settle. An Arizona agent responding to an alert from the National Guard in 2007 alleged Rivera threatened him with a rock.
Ten years later, the Department of Justice settled another wrongful death claim involving a rock-throwing allegation in California for $500,000.
The shootings are only part of a larger litany of Customs and Border Protection agency-related violence inside the US. Encounters have proven deadly for at least 97 people – citizens and non-citizens – since 2003, a count drawn from settlement payment data, court records, use of force logs, incident reports and news articles.
From Maine to Washington state and California to Florida, the deaths stem from all manner of CBP activity. Border agents manning land crossings and a checkpoint have used deadly force, as have agents conducting roving patrols – up to 160 miles inland from the border.
Sign up for Guardian Today US edition: the day's must-reads sent directly to you
Read more
Pedestrians were run over by agents. Car chases culminated in crashes. Some have drowned, others died after they were pepper-sprayed, stunned with tasers or beaten.
But the majority of victims died from bullet wounds, including shots in the back. The bullets were fired not only by agents conducting border enforcement operations, but also those acting in a local law enforcement capacity and by agents off-duty, who’ve shot burglary suspects, intimate partners and friends.
Among the incidents, one agent also died following an exchange of gunfire with a family member who was found dead. Another agent was killed by friendly fire. Border agents sustained non-deadly shots in two incidents.
The picture compiled from official documents and news reports is incomplete, but indicates that at least 28 people who died were US citizens. Six children, between the ages of 12 and 16, were among the victims whose ages were disclosed.
The federal government has paid more than $9m to settle a fraction of the incidents thus far. A Customs and Border Protection spokesperson did not comment on those cases but pointed to the agency’s National Use of Force Review Board, which has investigated 30 significant incidents since June 2015. Each of its 17 reports made public have found the use of force to be compliant with agency policy in effect at the time. Local boards also review incidents, but only those that do not result in serious injury or death.
Here, the Guardian looks at eight fatal encounters with CBP agents that happened inside the United States and the larger patterns of incidents to which they relate.
Agents getting in harm’s way
Valeria Tachiquin Alvarado
Valeria Tachiquin Alvarado Composite: Southern Border Communities Coalition
A US citizen and mother of five, 32-year-old Valeria Munique Tachiquin Alvarado was shot and killed by Justin Tackett, a border patrol agent and former police officer, in a suburb of San Diego, California in the fall of 2012. At the time of press, a wrongful death suit filed by Alvarado’s family was nearing judgement after four years of litigation. According to court records Alvarado attempted to drive away from an apartment where Tackett and six other plainclothes agents had begun questioning her and others without a warrant.
After Tackett climbed on and then off the hood of Alvarado’s car, her family’s suit alleges, she attempted to reverse away from the agent, who fired at Alvarado 10 times, hitting her nine.
“A part of me was taken away and there hasn’t been justice,” Alvarado’s mother Annabell Gomez told Guardian. “Everyday I wish it was a dream, but I wake up and she’s not here. Life is not the same without her smile,” said Gomez. “She loved her kids and life.”
As a sheriff’s deputy in neighboring Imperial county in the years prior, Tackett was suspended four times following a string of incidents that took place in the span of 19 months, involving unlawful searches, illegal detentions and reckless behavior, before he resigned upon receiving a termination notice, court documents detail.
A review of 15 CBP shootings, each targeting the drivers of moving vehicles over the course of two years, was conducted the year after Alvarado’s death by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). A nonprofit overseen by a board of police chiefs, that was commissioned by CBP to study its use of force policy, PERF found that in many cases, border agents “intentionally put themselves in the exit path of the vehicle”, thereby “creating justification for the use of deadly force”, with some shots “taken out of frustration”.
Unreasonable force
Settled by the Department of Justice under attorney general Jeff Sessions for $500,000 in 2017, the shooting of 41-year-old unarmed father of two Julian Ramirez Galindo took place near the California border in February 2014. Agent Daniel Bassinger alleged that Galindo, who was a street musician in Tijuana, hurled a basketball-sized rock at him from above. But according to the family’s lawyer Scott Hughes, the medical examiner’s report is at odds with the agent’s version of events, detailing a man of slight stature who died from two downward trajectory bullet wounds.
PERF’s review of CBP’s use of force policy the year prior recommended a revision prohibiting deadly force against “subjects throwing objects not capable of causing serious physical injury or death”, citing that in some cases, “agents put themselves in harm’s way” instead of moving out of range. “Too many cases do not appear to meet the test of objective reasonableness,” the report notes, recommending corrective action be taken if agents use deadly force when alternative responses are possible.
Bassinger was back at work within six days, NBC San Diego reported. One month later, then CBP chief Michael Fisher enacted PERF’s recommendations. But the lawyer Hughes, a former military police officer, thinks the problem runs far deeper.
“We can no longer tolerate shooting unarmed people in the United States,” he told The Guardian. “These officers are woefully under-trained,” he said. “They find themselves in situations they don’t know how to react in and they resort to shooting their way out. When in fact, they really don’t need to.”
Shootings found to be justified
Jose Luis Arambula
Jose Luis Arambula Composite: Jose Luis Arambula/Eduardo Silva
In May 2014, unarmed 31-year-old Jose Luis Arambula died in a pecan grove in his native Arizona, shot behind his left ear. After bailing from a car later found to be filled with marijuana, Arambula ran from agents before one fired at him multiple times from a distance of 60-70ft, according to the local Pima county sheriff’s office, which investigated the shooting. That office, citing the agents’ account that Arambula made a “punching out” motion towards them, found deadly force to be justified. But in the view of lawyer Jesus Romo Vejar, who filed a wrongful death suit on behalf of Arambula’s mother, the scenario was quite different. “It was a bad shooting,” he said.
The case is among a set of shootings that have been dismissed on technicalities or in favor of the defendant agents, including suits filed by the family of unarmed 18-year-old citizen Juan Mendez, who was shot in the back from a distance while running from an agent in Texas in 2010; unarmed 20-year-old Gerardo Lozano Rico, who was also shot in Texas in a fleeing car in 2011; unarmed 19-year-old citizen Carlos Lamadrid, who was shot in the back while climbing a ladder at the border fence in Arizona in 2011.
In many cases, “the facts are favorable”, said the lawyer Vejar. “But the judges are not favorably deposed.”
Northern states
In one of at least eight fatal encounters in northern border states, 30-year-old Alex Martinez, a US citizen from Washington state who had a mental illness, was shot 13 times after his Spanish-speaking father called 911 in 2011, according to a complaint sent to the attorney general and secretary of homeland security in 2013. Describing the border patrol’s arrival alongside local law enforcement officers, Martinez’s father told local community organizers: “The first thing they asked was, ‘Is he from here or is he from Mexico?’” Local law enforcement alleged that Martinez hit a sheriff’s deputy with a hammer, reported a Washington newspaper. But his family disputed that account, saying that Martinez held a flashlight and tripped. “We saw it with our own eyes and without there being any need for it,” said his father. “They did something unjust. Something that should not be taken lightly,” he said. “And border patrol did it all.” The local sheriff’s office found the shooting to be justified.
An agent stationed in Michigan shot and killed a person at a card game while off duty. In Minnesota, a pedestrian died after a fatal accident involving a car driven by a border agent.
On-duty border agents serving as back-up to local law enforcement have shot and killed two people in separate incidents in Maine, both involving armed men of whom one fired at agents, according to the state’s attorney general which found the shootings to be justified.
In Montana, agents on patrol shot Jeff Suddeth, a US citizen who they said had a stun gun. At the inquest which cleared agents of wrongdoing, Suddeth’s mother, who described her son as bipolar, told local media: “He lived 36 years, and in 15 minutes they took his life. I guess that’s the law.”
Mural
Mural Photograph: c/o Border Patrol Victims Network
Unrelated to border enforcement
Steven Edward Martin
Steven Edward Martin Composite: Steven Edward Martin/Bobbi Felix
In an incident unrelated to immigration enforcement, 21-year-old US citizen Steven Martin was shot and killed in Yuma, Arizona in 2008. An agent was driving by the gas station, where Martin was parked, when a friend, who was black, allegedly ran out of the store holding two cases of beer. The agent fired on Martin’s car, according to a wrongful death suit filed by his mother. The suit also alleged that the agent did not subsequently request medical help for Martin, who was bleeding on the scene and died four hours later, on Christmas Eve. The case settled for $350,000 in 2013.
With the exception of “regulations prescribed by the attorney general”, border agents with reasonable grounds have the authority to make non-immigration arrests, “for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States”, under the Immigration and Nationality Act. No such regulations can be readily identified however, and the Department of Justice did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Every year over Memorial Day weekend, Martin’s family gathers to celebrate his memory. “My son was an amazing person who had a heart of gold,” his mother said. “He would give his last dollar to help someone out. He was a hard worker, spent his money on his cousins and sister and brother. He loved being around his nephew and would have loved to meet his nieces. There are still times I don’t know how I can go on without him.”
‘Non-lethal’ force
Picked up by agents more than 70 miles from the border, in Orange county, California, Tomas Orzuna was denied medical care after agents beat, pepper-sprayed and then handcuffed him in a suffocating, face-down position, according to a lawsuit brought by Orzuna’s parents, which does not specify his age.
Force considered non-lethal has proven otherwise in a variety of circumstances. A man was pepper-sprayed at the Rio Grande river and then drowned. A man was hit with a stun gun inside a rental car and it immediately exploded. Four men were Tasered or beaten in separate incidents and then died. Agents fired explosives at a boat filled with migrants and one woman drowned.
Deaths have also occurred through alleged neglect or malice. A mother and her 16-year-old daughter drowned after agents ordered them to swim back across the Rio Grande river. Another 16-year-old was compelled to drink liquid meth by agents, after telling them it was juice, and died. An on-site paramedic at a border patrol station assessed that a man in custody was faking a seizure, a report by the San Diego medical examiner’s office detailed, but he had ingested a packet of drugs and died after being left alone in his cell.
Among cases which have settled, payments vary widely. Orzuna’s parents received $15,000 in 2012. The family of Anastacio Hernandez-Rojas received a $1m settlement in 2017. Beaten and Tasered five times, at a land crossing in California, Hernandez-Rojas’ cries for help were captured on video.
High-speed crashes
Israel Caballero
Israel Caballero Composite: Israel Caballero/Bound Boxing Academy
In August 2017, 18-year-old Israel Caballero, a US citizen, was among three people killed in a crash following a high-speed border patrol pursuit outside of San Diego, California. Initially stating that a license plate check linked the car to a homicide, the border patrol has since said no one in the vehicle was wanted of any crimes. The father of a one-year-old, Caballero worked as a landscaper, following a stint of competitive boxing throughout his youth. “What happened to him was totally devastating,” coach Juan Medina said of the former champion. “Israel was a very respectful young man.”
The incident is the latest among a string of fatal crashes that raise questions about CBP’s stated vehicle pursuit policy, which dictates that agents can commence and continue emergency driving only as long as the benefits outweigh the immediate danger posed.
In an Arizona crash resulting in a $350,000 wrongful death settlement, a car flipped when agents in pursuit threw a tire deflation device in the road, killing a 40-year-old mother of three. In a Texas crash, an eyewitness testified in court that a CBP vehicle bumped into the van they were pursuing. The crash left bodies and personal belongings strewn across a highway, resulting in nine fatalities. “When it comes to human smuggling it becomes tough,” a Texas police chief told the AP regarding pursuits. “You do look at it in a way that these people were just trying to come here to have a better life,” he said.
Off-duty shootings
Shot by an off-duty CBP agent using his service weapon, 15-year-old Darius Smith died near a train station in a suburb of Los Angeles in May 2015. The Los Angeles county sheriff’s office said it would not release video of the incident, but that the video backed up the agent’s account that Smith and two other teens attempted to rob him. Conflicting details swirl around a bb gun investigators say they found “close by” Smith’s body – but was not spotted by a man who held the teen’s hand until paramedics arrived, the Los Angeles Times reported. A football player at his high school, Smith dreamed of making it to the NFL his mother told local media. “He always had a smile on his face,” said a friend who now plays college football, dedicating his games in Smith’s honor.
Border patrol violence: US paid $60m to cover claims against the agency
The incident is among ten off-duty shootings by CBP agents since 2005 identified by the Guardian.
Since early 2018, a Texas border patrol supervisor was charged with murdering his romantic partner and her one-year-old son. A CBP officer in Miami shot and killed a man who entered her home, suspected of burglary, and a Texas agent shot a man described as a childhood friend.
Previous years have seen the federal government pay a $750,000 settlement to the family of Bassim Chmait, a 20-year-old Arab American; and an agent was incarcerated after shooting 27-year-old Adam Thomas, a father of two. Both men were the neighbors of agents, while a number of other off-duty fatal shootings have involved intimate partner violence and domestic disputes.
The Guardian’s list of fatal encounters with CBP agents can be accessed here. This story is published in collaboration with the CJ Project. Reporter Sarah Macaraeg can be contacted at sarah.macaraeg@gmail.com.
Raoul Peck: I Am Not Your Negro director on his new film The Young Karl Marx and why The Communist Manifesto is 'more relevant than ever' - Independent
May 2, 2018
Raoul Peck: I Am Not Your Negro director on his new film The Young Karl Marx and why The Communist Manifesto is 'more relevant than ever'
The award-winning director's new film explores the friendship between Marx and Engels – but he insists it's no period piece
Kaleem Aftab @aftabamon
On 5 May, it will be 200 years to the day since the birth of Karl Marx. To coincide with the anniversary a new film by Raoul Peck, The Young Karl Marx, looks at how Marx and his collaborator on The Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels, came to meet and form such a strong bond in Germany in 1844.
The Young Karl Marx is a kindred spirit to Walter Salles’ The Motorcycle Diaries, about another Communist icon, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, in that it’s as interested in the youthful antics and personal shenanigans of the protagonists as it is the work that would make them remembered in history.
Director Peck claimed the Best Documentary Film BAFTA this year for his incredible I Am Not Your Negro, a look at the battles that black people have had to fight for equality in America told entirely through the words of the novelist James Baldwin.
Born in Haiti in 1953, Peck’s parents fled the country with him and his two younger brothers when he was just eight years old. They escaped the Duvalier dictatorship and Peck grew up in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Stefan Konarske as Friedrich Engels and August Diehl as Karl Marx in 'The Young Karl Marx' (Velvet Film )
Peck attended schools in New York, where his mother worked at the UN, and in France, earning a baccalaureate before studying engineering and economics at Berlin’s Humboldt University, where he became enamoured with the work of Marx.
“All I am today is because of the structure that I got when I was young studying the work of Marx,” says the director. “At that time, in the 1970s and 1980s, you needed to confront yourself with those books, because it’s your past, it’s your present, it’s part of your general knowledge to understand the society that you are living in and in which you are an actor.”
I Am Not Your Negro captures the searing brilliance of James Baldwin
Peck is an impressively built man, who looks much younger than his 64 years, but he also has the vernacular of an academic. He talks like he’s delivering a lecture, which he often is. Peck is the President of La Fémis, the prestigious Paris film school. He speaks with that mastery of his subject matter that can at times be unnerving but is always enthralling.
He argues that to understand society “Marx is the key.” He’s a man who backs up his analysis with numbers, with history, and with philosophy.
The film starts in 1843 at a time when Europe was dominated by absolute monarchies. It credits the industrial revolution in England as transforming the world’s order, in which a new proletarian class are creating workers’ organisations founded on the Communist notion that all men are brothers.
Vicky Krieps, August Diehl and Stefan Konarske in 'The Young Karl Marx' (Velvet Film )
The film posits that two young Germans, Marx and Engels, will disrupt this notion and transform the struggle and future of the world.
“Marx never wrote any utopia,” says Peck, disparaging the commonly held perception. “In the film you see the people who wrote this utopia were [Pierre-Joseph] Proudhon and [Wilhelm] Weitling. Marx told them, both of them: ‘Let's stick to reality, let's develop something from reality.’ Marx never prophesied anything, except sometimes just as a joke or as a conversation.”
Peck argues that that today, Marx’s writing is more relevant than ever: “You sum up the articles and it is exactly the description of the 2008 crisis. It's like the children's book of the history of capitalism and you can trace it until today. So what other proof do you need?”
Peck’s driving ambition was to make a film that would explain the socio-political context of the friendship between Marx (played by August Diehl) and Engels (Stefan Konarske). It starts with Engels witnessing revolts at his dad’s factory in Manchester, the Ermens and Engel Mill. At the same time, Marx is undertaking a more philosophical interpretation of the changes in society, whilst struggling with his journalistic deadlines.
Stefan Konarske and August Diehl in 'The Young Karl Marx' (Velvet Film )
Their spouses are also key characters. Marx’s wife Jenny (played by Phantom Thread star Vicky Krieps) and Engel’s spouse Mary Burns (Hannah Steele) are both as rebellious as their beaus.
He argues that this is not a period film, despite the era and the costumes. “I didn’t make a film about the past. I’m not interested in the past in that way.”
“I wanted to go back to that moment of creation in the film… to go back to the fundamentals, because the book he left is the most important [thing],” states Peck. “How do we utilise this instrument to analyse society at a precise moment?”
And it’s this desire to connect to the present that has led to him make a movie that at times seems like an overly theoretical political analysis, and in other moments like a fun bromance, capturing the hijinks of ordinary young men.
“I hope that young people will recognise themselves in the film,” he says. “For me that would be the best thing. Because that's what it's about: How do I see or find a way to fight back [against] whatever is happening right now?”
What does need to be fought against right now? His response, unsurprisingly, includes President Trump and the widening gap between rich and poor.
James Baldwin in 'I Am Not Your Negro' (Magnolia Pictures)
I ask Peck how Marx ties in with the arguments that we see Baldwin making in I Am Not Your Negro. “When Baldwin says in my film ‘White is a metaphor for power,’ it’s another way of saying 'Chase Manhattan Bank'. That’s Marx’s analysis. So there are some similar perspectives in the way to see society.
"Race is just one emanation of capitalism – like the whole thing about the refugees today. It's not about the colour of the refugees – it's about capitalism doing its job, separating people, dividing, and maintaining the status quo of those who want to protect their privilege.”
Peck believes that people can do more to change society, especially in the west where a kind of lethargy has crept in.
His childhood experiences have taught him that human rights and democracy are something that must constantly be fought for: “Democracy is not something that is fixed once and for all. I came from a country that had a dictatorship and I fought a lot for the restoration of democracy. I know the price of being able to vote.
“In the west, people use voting as a consumer good,” he adds, “you can sit down on your couch and watch a reality show. This is not democracy. Democracy is to be an active citizen, to question every day what you do in your job.”
'The Young Karl Marx' is out 4 March
Raoul Peck: I Am Not Your Negro director on his new film The Young Karl Marx and why The Communist Manifesto is 'more relevant than ever'
The award-winning director's new film explores the friendship between Marx and Engels – but he insists it's no period piece
Kaleem Aftab @aftabamon
On 5 May, it will be 200 years to the day since the birth of Karl Marx. To coincide with the anniversary a new film by Raoul Peck, The Young Karl Marx, looks at how Marx and his collaborator on The Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels, came to meet and form such a strong bond in Germany in 1844.
The Young Karl Marx is a kindred spirit to Walter Salles’ The Motorcycle Diaries, about another Communist icon, Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, in that it’s as interested in the youthful antics and personal shenanigans of the protagonists as it is the work that would make them remembered in history.
Director Peck claimed the Best Documentary Film BAFTA this year for his incredible I Am Not Your Negro, a look at the battles that black people have had to fight for equality in America told entirely through the words of the novelist James Baldwin.
Born in Haiti in 1953, Peck’s parents fled the country with him and his two younger brothers when he was just eight years old. They escaped the Duvalier dictatorship and Peck grew up in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Stefan Konarske as Friedrich Engels and August Diehl as Karl Marx in 'The Young Karl Marx' (Velvet Film )
Peck attended schools in New York, where his mother worked at the UN, and in France, earning a baccalaureate before studying engineering and economics at Berlin’s Humboldt University, where he became enamoured with the work of Marx.
“All I am today is because of the structure that I got when I was young studying the work of Marx,” says the director. “At that time, in the 1970s and 1980s, you needed to confront yourself with those books, because it’s your past, it’s your present, it’s part of your general knowledge to understand the society that you are living in and in which you are an actor.”
I Am Not Your Negro captures the searing brilliance of James Baldwin
Peck is an impressively built man, who looks much younger than his 64 years, but he also has the vernacular of an academic. He talks like he’s delivering a lecture, which he often is. Peck is the President of La Fémis, the prestigious Paris film school. He speaks with that mastery of his subject matter that can at times be unnerving but is always enthralling.
He argues that to understand society “Marx is the key.” He’s a man who backs up his analysis with numbers, with history, and with philosophy.
The film starts in 1843 at a time when Europe was dominated by absolute monarchies. It credits the industrial revolution in England as transforming the world’s order, in which a new proletarian class are creating workers’ organisations founded on the Communist notion that all men are brothers.
Vicky Krieps, August Diehl and Stefan Konarske in 'The Young Karl Marx' (Velvet Film )
The film posits that two young Germans, Marx and Engels, will disrupt this notion and transform the struggle and future of the world.
“Marx never wrote any utopia,” says Peck, disparaging the commonly held perception. “In the film you see the people who wrote this utopia were [Pierre-Joseph] Proudhon and [Wilhelm] Weitling. Marx told them, both of them: ‘Let's stick to reality, let's develop something from reality.’ Marx never prophesied anything, except sometimes just as a joke or as a conversation.”
Peck argues that that today, Marx’s writing is more relevant than ever: “You sum up the articles and it is exactly the description of the 2008 crisis. It's like the children's book of the history of capitalism and you can trace it until today. So what other proof do you need?”
Peck’s driving ambition was to make a film that would explain the socio-political context of the friendship between Marx (played by August Diehl) and Engels (Stefan Konarske). It starts with Engels witnessing revolts at his dad’s factory in Manchester, the Ermens and Engel Mill. At the same time, Marx is undertaking a more philosophical interpretation of the changes in society, whilst struggling with his journalistic deadlines.
Stefan Konarske and August Diehl in 'The Young Karl Marx' (Velvet Film )
Their spouses are also key characters. Marx’s wife Jenny (played by Phantom Thread star Vicky Krieps) and Engel’s spouse Mary Burns (Hannah Steele) are both as rebellious as their beaus.
He argues that this is not a period film, despite the era and the costumes. “I didn’t make a film about the past. I’m not interested in the past in that way.”
“I wanted to go back to that moment of creation in the film… to go back to the fundamentals, because the book he left is the most important [thing],” states Peck. “How do we utilise this instrument to analyse society at a precise moment?”
And it’s this desire to connect to the present that has led to him make a movie that at times seems like an overly theoretical political analysis, and in other moments like a fun bromance, capturing the hijinks of ordinary young men.
“I hope that young people will recognise themselves in the film,” he says. “For me that would be the best thing. Because that's what it's about: How do I see or find a way to fight back [against] whatever is happening right now?”
What does need to be fought against right now? His response, unsurprisingly, includes President Trump and the widening gap between rich and poor.
James Baldwin in 'I Am Not Your Negro' (Magnolia Pictures)
I ask Peck how Marx ties in with the arguments that we see Baldwin making in I Am Not Your Negro. “When Baldwin says in my film ‘White is a metaphor for power,’ it’s another way of saying 'Chase Manhattan Bank'. That’s Marx’s analysis. So there are some similar perspectives in the way to see society.
"Race is just one emanation of capitalism – like the whole thing about the refugees today. It's not about the colour of the refugees – it's about capitalism doing its job, separating people, dividing, and maintaining the status quo of those who want to protect their privilege.”
Peck believes that people can do more to change society, especially in the west where a kind of lethargy has crept in.
His childhood experiences have taught him that human rights and democracy are something that must constantly be fought for: “Democracy is not something that is fixed once and for all. I came from a country that had a dictatorship and I fought a lot for the restoration of democracy. I know the price of being able to vote.
“In the west, people use voting as a consumer good,” he adds, “you can sit down on your couch and watch a reality show. This is not democracy. Democracy is to be an active citizen, to question every day what you do in your job.”
'The Young Karl Marx' is out 4 March
'That's Not a Good Use of My Time:' Bill Gates Says He Turned Down a Job Offer From Donald Trump - Fortune
'That's Not a Good Use of My Time:' Bill Gates Says He Turned Down a Job Offer From Donald Trump
Bill Gates Could Become the World’s First Trillionaire
When he turns 86.
By DAVID MEYER May 1, 2018
The White House has not had a science advisor since the end of the Obama administration, but President Donald Trump is apparently open to filling the role. In fact, Microsoft founder Bill Gates says he was offered the role.
It’s not clear whether or not Trump was serious, but Gates revealed the offer in an interview with health and medicine site Stat.
Gates, who these days chairs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with his wife, visited Trump in the Oval Office in March. At some point in the discussion, Gates suggested: “Hey, maybe we should have a science advisor.”
“[Trump] said: Did I want to be the science adviser?” he told Stat. Gates’s reply? “That’s not a good use of my time.”
Gates said he did not know whether the offer was genuine. “He probably himself didn’t know if he was serious,” Gates said.
The last director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy was John Holdren, a passionate advocate in the fight against climate change.
The post’s vacancy since Holdren’s resignation at the end of President Barack Obama’s tenure is the longest since in position was created. Indeed, the office of science advisor, which once had 135 staffers, had only 45 as of late last year.
“Trump is a science and technology talent repellent,” Holdren told CBS News in November.
Bill Gates Could Become the World’s First Trillionaire
When he turns 86.
By DAVID MEYER May 1, 2018
The White House has not had a science advisor since the end of the Obama administration, but President Donald Trump is apparently open to filling the role. In fact, Microsoft founder Bill Gates says he was offered the role.
It’s not clear whether or not Trump was serious, but Gates revealed the offer in an interview with health and medicine site Stat.
Gates, who these days chairs the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with his wife, visited Trump in the Oval Office in March. At some point in the discussion, Gates suggested: “Hey, maybe we should have a science advisor.”
“[Trump] said: Did I want to be the science adviser?” he told Stat. Gates’s reply? “That’s not a good use of my time.”
Gates said he did not know whether the offer was genuine. “He probably himself didn’t know if he was serious,” Gates said.
The last director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy was John Holdren, a passionate advocate in the fight against climate change.
The post’s vacancy since Holdren’s resignation at the end of President Barack Obama’s tenure is the longest since in position was created. Indeed, the office of science advisor, which once had 135 staffers, had only 45 as of late last year.
“Trump is a science and technology talent repellent,” Holdren told CBS News in November.
Ethiopia, Djibouti May Swap Stakes in Airlines, Ports, Telecoms - Bloomberg
Ethiopia, Djibouti May Swap Stakes in Airlines, Ports, Telecoms
By Nizar Manek
May 2, 2018, 8:01 PM GMT+10
Deal politically endorsed while details pending, minister says
Landlocked Ethiopia views tiny Red Sea state as key partner
Photographer: Jenny Vaughan/AFP via Getty Images
Ethiopia and Djibouti agreed to swap stakes in strategic public enterprises including airlines, ports and telecommunications companies, as the Horn of Africa neighbors pursue deeper economic integration.
The deal would include exchanges of shares in Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise, Africa’s biggest carrier by revenue, Djiboutian Finance Minister Ilyas Dawaleh said in an interview. Shareholdings in companies such as Djibouti’s Horizon Oil Terminal and the Doraleh Container Terminal, Ethiopian Telecommunications Corp. and Djibouti Telecom SA will also be swapped, he said.
While the deal has been politically “endorsed,” the two countries will form a committee to work out the details, Dawaleh said by phone April 30. Ethiopian Information Minister Ahmed Shide confirmed the agreement in a text message.
The pact came as Ethiopia’s new prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, made his first foreign visit at the weekend to Djibouti, the tiny state located where the Indian Ocean meets the Red Sea and that’s become a strategic hub for the U.S. and China. Landlocked Ethiopia -- which the International Monetary Fund ranks as the fastest-growing economy on the continent -- is trying to boost its export-oriented manufacturing, making it reliant on neighboring nations with ports.
Dawaleh said Abiy told Djiboutian officials that both countries should start referring to their state-owned enterprises as belonging to all, rather than one nation.
Abiy said in a statement on his Facebook page that officials from both countries “underlined the importance of working towards the realization of complete economic integration of the two economies.” He didn’t elaborate.
By Nizar Manek
May 2, 2018, 8:01 PM GMT+10
Deal politically endorsed while details pending, minister says
Landlocked Ethiopia views tiny Red Sea state as key partner
Photographer: Jenny Vaughan/AFP via Getty Images
Ethiopia and Djibouti agreed to swap stakes in strategic public enterprises including airlines, ports and telecommunications companies, as the Horn of Africa neighbors pursue deeper economic integration.
The deal would include exchanges of shares in Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise, Africa’s biggest carrier by revenue, Djiboutian Finance Minister Ilyas Dawaleh said in an interview. Shareholdings in companies such as Djibouti’s Horizon Oil Terminal and the Doraleh Container Terminal, Ethiopian Telecommunications Corp. and Djibouti Telecom SA will also be swapped, he said.
While the deal has been politically “endorsed,” the two countries will form a committee to work out the details, Dawaleh said by phone April 30. Ethiopian Information Minister Ahmed Shide confirmed the agreement in a text message.
The pact came as Ethiopia’s new prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, made his first foreign visit at the weekend to Djibouti, the tiny state located where the Indian Ocean meets the Red Sea and that’s become a strategic hub for the U.S. and China. Landlocked Ethiopia -- which the International Monetary Fund ranks as the fastest-growing economy on the continent -- is trying to boost its export-oriented manufacturing, making it reliant on neighboring nations with ports.
Dawaleh said Abiy told Djiboutian officials that both countries should start referring to their state-owned enterprises as belonging to all, rather than one nation.
Abiy said in a statement on his Facebook page that officials from both countries “underlined the importance of working towards the realization of complete economic integration of the two economies.” He didn’t elaborate.
Nearly 80 Percent of South Koreans Say They Trust Kim Jong Un - Bloomberg
Nearly 80 Percent of South Koreans Say They Trust Kim Jong Un
By Kanga Kong
May 2, 2018, 12:55 PM GMT+10
Last week’s summit with Moon Jae-in has changed perceptions
President Moon scored an 86 percent rating in the MBC poll
80% of South Koreans Now Trust Kim
One summit has changed the perceptions of a nation.
Friday’s meeting between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong Un prompted 78 percent of respondents to a Korea Research Center poll published this week to say they trusted the North Korean leader. That’s a far cry from the 10 percent of South Koreans who said they approved of Kim in a Gallup Korea poll conducted just a month-and-a-half ago.
The summit was filled with unprecedented scenes: Kim’s step over the ankle-high concrete slab dividing the Korean Peninsula -- and then his walk back across the border hand-in-hand with Moon; a 30-minute private chat in the woods in front of television cameras; the first ever live remarks to reporters by a North Korean leader; Kim’s sense of humor and his deferential manner toward Moon, who is more than 30 years his senior.
And that’s just the optics. More significantly, the two leaders signed a declaration to finally end a seven-decade war this year, and pursue the “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula. Kim also called for frequent meetings between the leaders -- a major shift given only three summits have taken place since the war.
Border Hop
More than 35 percent of respondents to the poll conducted earlier this week on behalf of national broadcaster MBC said the biggest accomplishment was the pledge to rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons. Nearly 30 percent said Moon’s hop over the border at Kim’s impromptu suggestion was the most impressive moment of the summit.
Support for Kim is now nearly as high as it is for Moon, who scored an 86 percent rating. The South Korean president has been enjoying the highest popularity among all South Korean presidents in history since his inauguration a year ago .
The question now is whether this positive perception of Kim will continue through and beyond a planned summit between the North Korean leader and U.S. President Donald Trump, possibly later this month.
By Kanga Kong
May 2, 2018, 12:55 PM GMT+10
Last week’s summit with Moon Jae-in has changed perceptions
President Moon scored an 86 percent rating in the MBC poll
80% of South Koreans Now Trust Kim
One summit has changed the perceptions of a nation.
Friday’s meeting between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong Un prompted 78 percent of respondents to a Korea Research Center poll published this week to say they trusted the North Korean leader. That’s a far cry from the 10 percent of South Koreans who said they approved of Kim in a Gallup Korea poll conducted just a month-and-a-half ago.
The summit was filled with unprecedented scenes: Kim’s step over the ankle-high concrete slab dividing the Korean Peninsula -- and then his walk back across the border hand-in-hand with Moon; a 30-minute private chat in the woods in front of television cameras; the first ever live remarks to reporters by a North Korean leader; Kim’s sense of humor and his deferential manner toward Moon, who is more than 30 years his senior.
And that’s just the optics. More significantly, the two leaders signed a declaration to finally end a seven-decade war this year, and pursue the “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula. Kim also called for frequent meetings between the leaders -- a major shift given only three summits have taken place since the war.
Border Hop
More than 35 percent of respondents to the poll conducted earlier this week on behalf of national broadcaster MBC said the biggest accomplishment was the pledge to rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons. Nearly 30 percent said Moon’s hop over the border at Kim’s impromptu suggestion was the most impressive moment of the summit.
Support for Kim is now nearly as high as it is for Moon, who scored an 86 percent rating. The South Korean president has been enjoying the highest popularity among all South Korean presidents in history since his inauguration a year ago .
The question now is whether this positive perception of Kim will continue through and beyond a planned summit between the North Korean leader and U.S. President Donald Trump, possibly later this month.
South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea - Reuters
MAY 2, 2018 / 11:22 AM / UPDATED 5 HOURS AGO
South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea
Christine Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Wednesday the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South is unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea and that American forces should stay even if such an agreement is signed.
“U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are an issue regarding the alliance between South Korea and the United States. It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties,” said Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House, citing President Moon Jae-in.
The Blue House was responding to media questions about a column written by South Korean presidential adviser and academic Moon Chung-in that was published earlier this week.
Moon Chung-in said it would be difficult to justify the presence of U.S. forces in South Korea if a peace treaty was signed after the two Koreas agreed at an historic summit last week to put an end to the Korean conflict.
However, Seoul wants the troops to stay because U.S. forces in South Korea play the role of a mediator in military confrontations between neighboring superpowers like China and Japan, another presidential official told reporters on condition of anonymity earlier on Wednesday.
Presidential adviser Moon Chung-in was asked not to create confusion regarding the president’s stance, Kim said.
The United States currently has around 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, which North Korea has long demanded be removed as one of the conditions for giving up its nuclear and missile programs.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. army soldiers take part in a U.S.-South Korea joint river-crossing exercise near the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas in Yeoncheon, South Korea, April 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji
However, there was no mention in last week’s declaration by Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. Kim and Moon Jae-in pledged to work for the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean peninsula.
U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea since the Korean War, which ended in 1953 in an armistice that left the two Koreas technically still at war.
Moon Jae-in and Kim have said they want to put an end to the Korean conflict, promising there will be “no more war” on the Korean peninsula.
Reporting by Christine Kim; Editing by Paul Tait
South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea
Christine Kim
SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Wednesday the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South is unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea and that American forces should stay even if such an agreement is signed.
“U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are an issue regarding the alliance between South Korea and the United States. It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties,” said Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House, citing President Moon Jae-in.
The Blue House was responding to media questions about a column written by South Korean presidential adviser and academic Moon Chung-in that was published earlier this week.
Moon Chung-in said it would be difficult to justify the presence of U.S. forces in South Korea if a peace treaty was signed after the two Koreas agreed at an historic summit last week to put an end to the Korean conflict.
However, Seoul wants the troops to stay because U.S. forces in South Korea play the role of a mediator in military confrontations between neighboring superpowers like China and Japan, another presidential official told reporters on condition of anonymity earlier on Wednesday.
Presidential adviser Moon Chung-in was asked not to create confusion regarding the president’s stance, Kim said.
The United States currently has around 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, which North Korea has long demanded be removed as one of the conditions for giving up its nuclear and missile programs.
FILE PHOTO: U.S. army soldiers take part in a U.S.-South Korea joint river-crossing exercise near the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas in Yeoncheon, South Korea, April 8, 2016. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji
However, there was no mention in last week’s declaration by Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. Kim and Moon Jae-in pledged to work for the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean peninsula.
U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea since the Korean War, which ended in 1953 in an armistice that left the two Koreas technically still at war.
Moon Jae-in and Kim have said they want to put an end to the Korean conflict, promising there will be “no more war” on the Korean peninsula.
Reporting by Christine Kim; Editing by Paul Tait
Kanye West says slavery for 400 years was 'a choice' - BBC News
May 2, 2018
Kanye West says slavery for 400 years was 'a choice'
Rapper under fire for series of tweets and comments, including praise for Donald Trump
Clark Mindock New York @ClarkMindock
Kanye was recently seen wearing President Donald Trump's signature campaign hat BACKGRID
Kanye West has suggested that slavery in the United States was a choice by those enslaved, prompting a black TMZ reporter to challenge him in a heated exchange for his recent comments.
“When you hear about slavery for 400 years. For 400 years? That sounds like a choice!” Kanye said during an interview before the confrontation.
“Like, you was there for 400 years, and it’s all y’all? You know, it’s like, we’re mentally in prison. I like the word prison because slavery goes too direct to the idea of blacks,” Kanye continued.
Kanye West talks about Jay-Z and Beyonce not coming to his wedding
“Prison is something that unites us as one race. Blacks and whites being one race," he continued. "That we’re the human race.”
The comments followed after the hip-hop artist reactivated his Twitter account and began posting a series of tweets that drew heavy criticism. In some of the tweets he praised President Donald Trump, and went so far as to post a picture of himself wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
“Do you feel that I’m being free, and I’m thinking free?” Kanye is shown in a TMZ video before the confrontation.
“I actually don’t think you’re thinking anything. I think what you’re doing right now is actually the absence of thought,” the TMZ reporter, Van, responded from across the room.
“And the reason why I feel like that is because, Kanye, you’re entitled to your opinion, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want, but there is real life consequence behind everything that you just said.”
Kanye admits that he was 'hurt' that Jay Z and Beyonce didn't come to his wedding
Westworld season 2 features Kanye West song week after Trump comments
Questlove spotted in 'Kanye doesn't care about black people' T-shirt
Kanye West and John Legend put aside differences: 'Agree to disagree'
Kanye West trolls fans with new song 'Lift Yourself'
Van argued that Kanye is able to say whatever he wants in part because he is removed from the dangers that face people of lesser means in America, where the ugly history of racism still casts a shadow over the lives of many in black and minority communities.
“While you are making music and being an artist, and living the life that you’ve earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives,” he said. “We have to deal with the marginalization that has come from 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice. Frankly, I’m disappointed. I’m appalled. And, brother, I’m unbelievably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something that, for me, is not real."
Kanye West says slavery for 400 years was 'a choice'
Rapper under fire for series of tweets and comments, including praise for Donald Trump
Clark Mindock New York @ClarkMindock
Kanye was recently seen wearing President Donald Trump's signature campaign hat BACKGRID
Kanye West has suggested that slavery in the United States was a choice by those enslaved, prompting a black TMZ reporter to challenge him in a heated exchange for his recent comments.
“When you hear about slavery for 400 years. For 400 years? That sounds like a choice!” Kanye said during an interview before the confrontation.
“Like, you was there for 400 years, and it’s all y’all? You know, it’s like, we’re mentally in prison. I like the word prison because slavery goes too direct to the idea of blacks,” Kanye continued.
Kanye West talks about Jay-Z and Beyonce not coming to his wedding
“Prison is something that unites us as one race. Blacks and whites being one race," he continued. "That we’re the human race.”
The comments followed after the hip-hop artist reactivated his Twitter account and began posting a series of tweets that drew heavy criticism. In some of the tweets he praised President Donald Trump, and went so far as to post a picture of himself wearing a Make America Great Again hat.
“Do you feel that I’m being free, and I’m thinking free?” Kanye is shown in a TMZ video before the confrontation.
“I actually don’t think you’re thinking anything. I think what you’re doing right now is actually the absence of thought,” the TMZ reporter, Van, responded from across the room.
“And the reason why I feel like that is because, Kanye, you’re entitled to your opinion, you’re entitled to believe whatever you want, but there is real life consequence behind everything that you just said.”
Kanye admits that he was 'hurt' that Jay Z and Beyonce didn't come to his wedding
Westworld season 2 features Kanye West song week after Trump comments
Questlove spotted in 'Kanye doesn't care about black people' T-shirt
Kanye West and John Legend put aside differences: 'Agree to disagree'
Kanye West trolls fans with new song 'Lift Yourself'
Van argued that Kanye is able to say whatever he wants in part because he is removed from the dangers that face people of lesser means in America, where the ugly history of racism still casts a shadow over the lives of many in black and minority communities.
“While you are making music and being an artist, and living the life that you’ve earned by being a genius, the rest of us in society have to deal with these threats to our lives,” he said. “We have to deal with the marginalization that has come from 400 years of slavery that you said for our people was a choice. Frankly, I’m disappointed. I’m appalled. And, brother, I’m unbelievably hurt by the fact that you have morphed into something that, for me, is not real."
Donald Trump wrote own health letter, says physician Harold Bornstein - BBC News
May 2, 2018
Donald Trump wrote own health letter, says physician Harold Bornstein
The letter signed by Mr Bornstein described Mr Trump's stamina as "extraordinary"
Donald Trump's former doctor has said he did not write a 2015 letter declaring the then-Republican presidential candidate's "astonishingly excellent" health, US media report.
"[Mr Trump] dictated that whole letter," Harold Bornstein told CNN.
The White House has not yet commented on the physician's allegation.
Mr Bornstein also said that Mr Trump's bodyguard had carried out a "raid" on his offices in February 2017, removing all of Mr Trump's medical records.
In an interview with CNN, Mr Bornstein said the 2015 letter suggesting that Mr Trump would be the "healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" was not his professional assessment.
"[Mr Trump] dictated the letter and I would tell him what he couldn't put in there," he said.
It is not clear why Mr Bornstein is making these allegations now.
Skip Twitter post by @atrupar
Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Trump's doctor, Dr. Harold Bornstein, tells NBC that Trump's bodyguard & lawyer spent 30 minutes raiding his office.
"I couldn't believe anybody was making a big deal about a drug that's to grow his hair, which seemed to be so important... what's the matter with that?"
2:15 AM - May 2, 2018
What was in the letter?
The letter's contents included statements on Mr Trump's physical strength and stamina, which were described as "extraordinary".
His blood pressure and laboratory tests were described as "astonishingly excellent" and he was said to have lost 15 pounds (7kg) over the course of a year.
It added that Mr Trump had no forms of cancer or joint surgery.
Quiz: Could you pass Trump's brain test?
A few weeks ahead of its release, Mr Trump tweeted that Mr Bornstein's medical report would show "perfection".
"I am fortunate to have been blessed with great genes," Mr Trump, who became the oldest president to be elected in US history, wrote on Facebook at the time.
In January this year Mr Trump had a three-hour examination amid speculation over his mental health.
Media captionDr Jackson on President Trump: "He has incredible genes"
His White House doctor, Ronny Jackson, said at the time: "I have no concerns about his cognitive ability or neurological functions."
What about Mr Bornstein's office 'raid'?
The New York City-based physician said he was visited by one of Mr Trump's personal bodyguards and two other men at his office on 3 February 2017.
"They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes, it created a lot of chaos," Mr Bornstein told NBC News, adding that the incident made him feel "raped, frightened and sad".
He said the original and only copy of Mr Trump's medical charts, including lab reports, were taken by his aides.
The incident took place shortly after The New York Times published a report in which Mr Bornstein said he had prescribed Mr Trump with Propecia, an anti-baldness drug.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later insisted that the incident was not a raid and that it was "standard procedure" for the White House Medical Unit to take possession of the president's medical records.
Donald Trump wrote own health letter, says physician Harold Bornstein
The letter signed by Mr Bornstein described Mr Trump's stamina as "extraordinary"
Donald Trump's former doctor has said he did not write a 2015 letter declaring the then-Republican presidential candidate's "astonishingly excellent" health, US media report.
"[Mr Trump] dictated that whole letter," Harold Bornstein told CNN.
The White House has not yet commented on the physician's allegation.
Mr Bornstein also said that Mr Trump's bodyguard had carried out a "raid" on his offices in February 2017, removing all of Mr Trump's medical records.
In an interview with CNN, Mr Bornstein said the 2015 letter suggesting that Mr Trump would be the "healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency" was not his professional assessment.
"[Mr Trump] dictated the letter and I would tell him what he couldn't put in there," he said.
It is not clear why Mr Bornstein is making these allegations now.
Skip Twitter post by @atrupar
Aaron Rupar
✔
@atrupar
Trump's doctor, Dr. Harold Bornstein, tells NBC that Trump's bodyguard & lawyer spent 30 minutes raiding his office.
"I couldn't believe anybody was making a big deal about a drug that's to grow his hair, which seemed to be so important... what's the matter with that?"
2:15 AM - May 2, 2018
What was in the letter?
The letter's contents included statements on Mr Trump's physical strength and stamina, which were described as "extraordinary".
His blood pressure and laboratory tests were described as "astonishingly excellent" and he was said to have lost 15 pounds (7kg) over the course of a year.
It added that Mr Trump had no forms of cancer or joint surgery.
Quiz: Could you pass Trump's brain test?
A few weeks ahead of its release, Mr Trump tweeted that Mr Bornstein's medical report would show "perfection".
"I am fortunate to have been blessed with great genes," Mr Trump, who became the oldest president to be elected in US history, wrote on Facebook at the time.
In January this year Mr Trump had a three-hour examination amid speculation over his mental health.
Media captionDr Jackson on President Trump: "He has incredible genes"
His White House doctor, Ronny Jackson, said at the time: "I have no concerns about his cognitive ability or neurological functions."
What about Mr Bornstein's office 'raid'?
The New York City-based physician said he was visited by one of Mr Trump's personal bodyguards and two other men at his office on 3 February 2017.
"They must have been here for 25 or 30 minutes, it created a lot of chaos," Mr Bornstein told NBC News, adding that the incident made him feel "raped, frightened and sad".
He said the original and only copy of Mr Trump's medical charts, including lab reports, were taken by his aides.
The incident took place shortly after The New York Times published a report in which Mr Bornstein said he had prescribed Mr Trump with Propecia, an anti-baldness drug.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later insisted that the incident was not a raid and that it was "standard procedure" for the White House Medical Unit to take possession of the president's medical records.
Armenia crisis: Protesters bring cities to standstill after vote - BBC News
May 2, 2018
Armenia crisis: Protesters bring cities to standstill after vote
Protesters of all ages returned to Republic Square in the capital as Armenians responded to a call for a general strike
Tens of thousands of supporters of Armenia's protest leader, Nikol Pashinyan, have responded to his call for civil disobedience, blocking key roads and government buildings.
Mr Pashinyan has led weeks of anti-government protests that forced former PM Serzh Sargsyan to resign.
He called for a general strike after ruling party MPs refused to back him as interim prime minister on Tuesday.
Protests broke out across the capital Yerevan and other main cities.
Cars and lorries blocked intersections in the capital, while demonstrators stopped traffic on the route to the main airport. Tourists had to abandon vehicles and carry their luggage. Metro stations in Yerevan were closed as part of the campaign of disobedience.
rayhan demytrie
@rayhandemytrie
#yerevan #Armenia protesters started blocking major roads including one leading to international airport. Just saw a group of young medics chanting “republican’s go” one protesters said they won’t stop until their leader #pashinyan is elected PM
3:30 PM - May 2, 2018 · Armenia
Teachers and school students were among those taking part in the protests in the landlocked former Soviet state of 2.9 million people, a close ally of Russia. The southern Caucasus country shares borders with Turkey, Georgia, Iran and Azerbaijan.
Entrances to several ministry buildings were blockaded and rail services were also disrupted. Trains were not running between Yerevan and the second city, Gyumri, and checkpoints near the Georgian border were affected.
There was further disruption in Gyumri itself and in the third city Vanadzor, where a large crowd of protesters blockaded the mayor's office and other civic buildings. Three thousand workers from a local sewing factory walked out and cut off some of Vanadzor's biggest roads, reports said.
Some protesters blocked roads with rubbish bins while others parked cars across junctions and sat on benches in the middle of the road
The demonstrators took to the streets after Mr Pashinyan addressed crowds on Tuesday night in Yerevan's Republic Square, close to parliament, saying that police should also join the protests.
He told the BBC on Wednesday that protesters were fighting for their own rights and dignity. "I want to be clear, it isn't a fight for Nikol Pashinyan becoming prime minister, it's a fight for human rights, for democracy, for rule of law and that is why our people aren't tired and won't be tired."
During the day he posted a message on social media urging protesters to halt disruption at the airport, while other opposition politicians appealed to people not to impede emergency services. Police tried to move protesters off the roads but there was no sign of violence.
Why Armenia's 'Velvet Revolution' won without a shot fired
Armenia: History and politics
Mr Pashinyan fell eight votes short of the 53 he needed to secure a majority in the 105-seat chamber on Tuesday, when he failed to persuade the ruling Republican party to back him.
He warned them during a marathon nine-hour question-and-answer session of what would happen if they rejected his candidacy. "Your behaviour, treating the tolerance of the people as a weakness, could become the cause of a tsunami."
Parliament is expected to try again to elect a prime minister on 8 May.
Republican MPs had reportedly given assurances they would not block Mr Pashinyan's bid for office and did not put up their own candidate in a bid to ease tensions. But some MPs accused him of bringing chaos to the streets and questioned whether he was up to the job.
"Mr Pashinyan, I don't see you at the post of prime minister, I don't see you at the post of commander-in-chief," said Eduard Sharmazanov, deputy speaker of parliament and Republican spokesman.
Mr Pashinyan's supporters shouted "shame" when the result of the parliamentary vote was shown on two huge screens in Republic Square.
The opposition leader, accompanied by his wife, arrived in the square soon after, with the crowd chanting "Nikol, Nikol".
How did we get here?
Mr Sargsyan, who had served 10 years as president, stepped down last month, days after being sworn in as prime minister.
Demonstrators had poured onto the streets of Yerevan in protest at the move, accusing him of trying to cling to power.
Mr Pashinyan then met his rival for talks, which broke down within minutes when he called for the prime minister's resignation and Mr Sargsyan accused protesters of blackmail.
Media captionSupporters mob Armenian protest leader Nikol Pashinyan after the PM resigns
Mr Pashinyan and about 200 protesters were then arrested.
However, Mr Pashinyan was soon released and the prime minister resigned, admitting he had "got it wrong".
Mr Pashinyan has said he will rid Armenia of corruption, poverty and nepotism and has promised snap elections.
Who is Nikol Pashinyan?
The son of a sports teacher, Mr Pashinyan came to prominence in 1995 when he began writing about government corruption. He founded a newspaper three years later and went on to take the role of editor at a best-selling daily, which criticised the government of President Robert Kocharyan and then of President Sargsyan.
Nikol Pashinyan said the Republican Party had "declared war" on the Armenian people
When Mr Sargsyan was elected president in 2008, Mr Pashinyan was among the leaders of protests that turned violent and left 10 people dead. At that point he went into hiding, surrendering to authorities the following year.
Jailed the following year on charges of murder and organising mass unrest, he was eventually released under an amnesty in 2011.
In 2012, he was first elected to Armenia's parliament. He argues that only he can steer Armenia to free and fair elections.
Armenia crisis: Protesters bring cities to standstill after vote
Protesters of all ages returned to Republic Square in the capital as Armenians responded to a call for a general strike
Tens of thousands of supporters of Armenia's protest leader, Nikol Pashinyan, have responded to his call for civil disobedience, blocking key roads and government buildings.
Mr Pashinyan has led weeks of anti-government protests that forced former PM Serzh Sargsyan to resign.
He called for a general strike after ruling party MPs refused to back him as interim prime minister on Tuesday.
Protests broke out across the capital Yerevan and other main cities.
Cars and lorries blocked intersections in the capital, while demonstrators stopped traffic on the route to the main airport. Tourists had to abandon vehicles and carry their luggage. Metro stations in Yerevan were closed as part of the campaign of disobedience.
rayhan demytrie
@rayhandemytrie
#yerevan #Armenia protesters started blocking major roads including one leading to international airport. Just saw a group of young medics chanting “republican’s go” one protesters said they won’t stop until their leader #pashinyan is elected PM
3:30 PM - May 2, 2018 · Armenia
Teachers and school students were among those taking part in the protests in the landlocked former Soviet state of 2.9 million people, a close ally of Russia. The southern Caucasus country shares borders with Turkey, Georgia, Iran and Azerbaijan.
Entrances to several ministry buildings were blockaded and rail services were also disrupted. Trains were not running between Yerevan and the second city, Gyumri, and checkpoints near the Georgian border were affected.
There was further disruption in Gyumri itself and in the third city Vanadzor, where a large crowd of protesters blockaded the mayor's office and other civic buildings. Three thousand workers from a local sewing factory walked out and cut off some of Vanadzor's biggest roads, reports said.
Some protesters blocked roads with rubbish bins while others parked cars across junctions and sat on benches in the middle of the road
The demonstrators took to the streets after Mr Pashinyan addressed crowds on Tuesday night in Yerevan's Republic Square, close to parliament, saying that police should also join the protests.
He told the BBC on Wednesday that protesters were fighting for their own rights and dignity. "I want to be clear, it isn't a fight for Nikol Pashinyan becoming prime minister, it's a fight for human rights, for democracy, for rule of law and that is why our people aren't tired and won't be tired."
During the day he posted a message on social media urging protesters to halt disruption at the airport, while other opposition politicians appealed to people not to impede emergency services. Police tried to move protesters off the roads but there was no sign of violence.
Why Armenia's 'Velvet Revolution' won without a shot fired
Armenia: History and politics
Mr Pashinyan fell eight votes short of the 53 he needed to secure a majority in the 105-seat chamber on Tuesday, when he failed to persuade the ruling Republican party to back him.
He warned them during a marathon nine-hour question-and-answer session of what would happen if they rejected his candidacy. "Your behaviour, treating the tolerance of the people as a weakness, could become the cause of a tsunami."
Parliament is expected to try again to elect a prime minister on 8 May.
Republican MPs had reportedly given assurances they would not block Mr Pashinyan's bid for office and did not put up their own candidate in a bid to ease tensions. But some MPs accused him of bringing chaos to the streets and questioned whether he was up to the job.
"Mr Pashinyan, I don't see you at the post of prime minister, I don't see you at the post of commander-in-chief," said Eduard Sharmazanov, deputy speaker of parliament and Republican spokesman.
Mr Pashinyan's supporters shouted "shame" when the result of the parliamentary vote was shown on two huge screens in Republic Square.
The opposition leader, accompanied by his wife, arrived in the square soon after, with the crowd chanting "Nikol, Nikol".
How did we get here?
Mr Sargsyan, who had served 10 years as president, stepped down last month, days after being sworn in as prime minister.
Demonstrators had poured onto the streets of Yerevan in protest at the move, accusing him of trying to cling to power.
Mr Pashinyan then met his rival for talks, which broke down within minutes when he called for the prime minister's resignation and Mr Sargsyan accused protesters of blackmail.
Media captionSupporters mob Armenian protest leader Nikol Pashinyan after the PM resigns
Mr Pashinyan and about 200 protesters were then arrested.
However, Mr Pashinyan was soon released and the prime minister resigned, admitting he had "got it wrong".
Mr Pashinyan has said he will rid Armenia of corruption, poverty and nepotism and has promised snap elections.
Who is Nikol Pashinyan?
The son of a sports teacher, Mr Pashinyan came to prominence in 1995 when he began writing about government corruption. He founded a newspaper three years later and went on to take the role of editor at a best-selling daily, which criticised the government of President Robert Kocharyan and then of President Sargsyan.
Nikol Pashinyan said the Republican Party had "declared war" on the Armenian people
When Mr Sargsyan was elected president in 2008, Mr Pashinyan was among the leaders of protests that turned violent and left 10 people dead. At that point he went into hiding, surrendering to authorities the following year.
Jailed the following year on charges of murder and organising mass unrest, he was eventually released under an amnesty in 2011.
In 2012, he was first elected to Armenia's parliament. He argues that only he can steer Armenia to free and fair elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
