Categories
Entertainment

A Movie Tries to Make a Distinction for Home Violence Survivors

In 2013, Tanisha Davis, a 26-year-old woman from Rochester, NY, was sentenced to 14 years in prison for killing her boyfriend and a beating the night he died. The judge agreed that she was a victim of domestic violence, but said that her response deserves no indulgence. “You handled the situation completely wrong,” he told her. “You could have left.”

In 2021, the same judge dismissed Davis on a new law that allowed domestic violence survivors to have more nuanced consideration in the courts, thanks in part to a documentary that helped shape their case.

It is not uncommon for documentary projects to have an impact on legal proceedings once they have found an audience and built public attention. But the film that Davis helped, “And So I Stayed,” wasn’t out yet – it wasn’t even finished – when filmmakers Natalie Pattillo and Daniel A. Nelson put together a short video for the court of them described their lives.

“You could see how strong the bonds she had with her family and the strength of the support she would have” if she were released, said Angela N. Ellis, one of her lawyers. The prosecutor and the judge both mentioned that they were watching the footage when they agreed to release her in March.

During her eight years in prison, Davis, 34, spoke to her son, who is now 15, every day. Now that she is at home, “I can just call him in the next room,” she said. “I can’t even explain this joy. I cry tears of joy all the time. “

For the filmmakers, it was an unexpectedly bright ending to an often heartbreaking and unsettling film. And So I Stayed, which premieres Saturday at the Brooklyn Film Festival (online until June 13), is personal for Pattillo, who is a survivor herself and whose sister was killed by a friend in 2010. The documentary grew out of her graduation project at Columbia Journalism School, where she met Nelson, her co-director.

“I didn’t realize how common it is that women are imprisoned for defending themselves or their children,” said Pattillo. “When I found out, I couldn’t stop reporting” to show how misunderstood and punitive these cases are within the judicial system.

The film’s first focus was on Kim Dadou Brown, who spent 17 years in prison for killing her violent boyfriend. She became a lawyer and traveled to Albany to brief New York lawmakers on the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act, the long-smoldering piece of legislation that eventually helped free Davis. Introduced in 2011, it was finally passed in 2019 after the Democrats flipped the state senate.

The law is one of the few laws in the country that gives judges more leniency in convicting victims of domestic violence who commit crimes against their perpetrators. It follows a growing, research-based understanding of the patterns of abusive relationships and the unique impact they have on the people in them.

“Leaving is the hardest part,” and the most dangerous, said Dadou Brown. “I thought all men were hitting and I stuck with mine so I knew which way the hitting would be coming.”

After Dadou Brown, a Rochester native and former healthcare worker, was paroled in 2008, she volunteered with survivors and crossed the state for rallies – even when money was tight because her felony status made it difficult to find jobs, she said. With 17 earrings (one for each year of imprisonment) and her signature false eyelashes, “she’s just a force,” said Pattillo. “It’s sheer tenacity. This is Kim. “

When the bill was passed, there was high spirits among its supporters and filmmakers. But they left their cameras on.

One case considered a surefire test of the crime was that of Nicole Addimando, a young mother of two in Poughkeepsie, NY, who fatally shot and killed Christopher Grover, her living friend and father of the children, in 2017. The film contains footage from police cameras the night she was found disoriented and driving around in the early hours of the morning with her 4 and 2 year olds in the backseat.

Her case made national headlines for the severity of the abuse she allegedly suffered: bites and blue eyes; Bruises and burns on her body, including during pregnancy, that have been documented by doctors; Rapes that Grover videotaped and uploaded to a porn site. In the film, a social worker calls it not just assault, but “sexual torture”. In 2020, Addimando was sentenced to 19 years of life imprisonment for second degree manslaughter; the judge contested the applicability of the Survivor Justice Act.

“I felt like we let them down,” said Dadou Brown, who was at the conviction.

In the film, Addimando can mainly be heard as the voice on the phone from prison; with a phone call, her mother tries to comfort her that she is at least still alive, that she has escaped being mistreated. “I’m still not free,” she replies, crying.

While there are no statewide statistics on the number of women incarcerated who have defended themselves against abusers, federal research suggests that around half of women in jail have experienced physical abuse or sexual violence, most from romantic partners. Black women are disproportionately harassed by both intimate partner violence and the judicial system: they are most often killed by a romantic partner and more likely to end up in prison, according to Bernadine Waller, a researcher at Adelphi University.

According to Nelson, the filmmaker, bringing stories like this to the screen is not about questioning the triggers, but rather about contextualizing the convicts. “The legal system forces you to create the perfect victim,” he said, “and a prosecutor will do everything in his power to characterize a survivor so that he does not fit in that box.” (In Addimando’s case, the judge said she “reluctantly consented” to the sexual abuse.)

Garrard Beeney, an Addimando attorney pending a decision on her appeal, said the investigation into the documentary into the judiciary’s handling of survivors was “a necessary but, in my opinion, not sufficient step” to change the process . Police, prosecutors and judges need training to think about domestic violence, he said. “We need this type of retraining more urgently than a gradual process of understanding.”

For Pattillo, who had two of her three children while filming, a few moments felt overwhelmingly raw. “There is always survivor’s fault when dealing with trauma,” she said, adding, referring to Addimando, “Why was I fine and not Nikki? Why don’t you take care of your children every night? “

But it is also “very healing,” she added, “to have helped survivors feel seen, heard and believed through this film.”

It originally ended on a dark note, at a vigil for Addimando. Then came the Davis case. The filmmakers were there on the day she was released from the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. Getting used to the outdoors again – during a pandemic – is still a challenge, Davis said last week. But she wanted her story to be told as a warning to the victims and as a beacon. The filmmakers plan to make the documentary available to the legal system – “a toolkit,” Nelson said on how to apply the new law.

Dadou Brown was also in Bedford Hills; she drove Davis’ family there. Her advocacy, said Dadou Brown, has become her life’s work. “I’m so happy to have so many dream moments,” she said. “Even when I come home from prison. My next dream will come true, to bring Nikki home. “

Categories
Politics

White Supremacists Prime Home Terror Risk, Officers Say

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro N. Mayorkas told Senators on Wednesday that the greatest domestic threat to the United States comes from what they both describe as “racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists”.

“Especially those who advocate the superiority of the white race,” Garland told the Senate Committee on Funds.

Cabinet secretaries’ appearances represented a dramatic change from the tone of the Trump administration, as the threat posed by white supremacists and similar groups was deliberately downplayed, in part to raise the profile of what former President Donald J. Trump posed as violent threats Radical denoted left groups.

Last year, the former head of Homeland Security’s Intelligence Department filed a whistleblower complaint accusing the department of blocking an intelligence report on the threat of violent racism and describing white supremacists as “exceptionally fatal in their heinous targeted attacks in recent years. “The official accused

“The department is taking a new approach to combating domestic violent extremism, both internally and externally,” Mayorkas told the senators on Wednesday.

While Justice and Homeland Security have long been involved in fighting violent extremism in the country, Biden government officials have stated that the January 6 pro-Trump riots in the Capitol created an urgent need to get stronger focus on domestic extremism.

But the Senate Republicans didn’t share that focus. Top Republican on the committee, Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, said the Democrats politicized the issue by calling domestic violent extremists right-wing extremists. He equated the riots with the protests against police violence in the summer of 2020.

Other republicans on the committee grilled the attorney general and the chief of homeland security over border security and other immigration issues.

The Justice Department is investigating the January 6 riot and has arrested more than 430 people nationwide, Garland said. Only last week did prosecutors start informally negotiating plea agreements. Some of the defendants fought the charges.

Categories
Politics

Biden Steps Up Federal Efforts to Fight Home Extremism

WASHINGTON – Die Regierung von Biden verstärkt ihre Bemühungen zur Bekämpfung des innerstaatlichen Extremismus, erhöht die Mittel zur Verhinderung von Angriffen, wägt Strategien ab, die in der Vergangenheit gegen ausländische Terroristengruppen angewendet wurden, und warnt die Öffentlichkeit offener vor der Bedrohung.

Die Versuche, das Gewaltpotential weißer Supremacisten und Milizen selbstbewusster zu bekämpfen, sind eine Abkehr vom Druck von Präsident Donald J. Trump auf Bundesbehörden, Ressourcen umzuleiten, um die Antifa-Bewegung und linke Gruppen ins Visier zu nehmen, obwohl die Strafverfolgungsbehörden bisher zu dem Schluss gekommen sind. Rechts- und Milizgewalt war eine ernstere Bedrohung.

Präsident Bidens Ansatz setzt auch eine langsame Erkenntnis fort, dass die Bundesregierung insbesondere nach dem Aufstand im Capitol am 6. Januar nach zwei Jahrzehnten, in denen sie ausländischen Terrorismus begangen hat, mehr Aufmerksamkeit und Geld in die Verfolgung und Abwehr von Bedrohungen aus den Vereinigten Staaten investieren muss die Sicherheitspriorität.

In einem Geheimdienstbericht, der im letzten Monat an den Kongress übermittelt wurde, bezeichnete die Regierung weiße Supremacisten und Milizgruppen als größte nationale Sicherheitsbedrohungen. Das Weiße Haus diskutiert auch mit Mitgliedern des Kongresses die Möglichkeit neuer innerstaatlicher Terrorismusgesetze und Durchführungsverordnungen, um die Kriterien der Terrorismus-Beobachtungslisten zu aktualisieren und möglicherweise mehr einheimische Extremisten einzubeziehen.

Das Heimatschutzministerium hat eine Überprüfung des Umgangs mit häuslichem Extremismus begonnen. Zum ersten Mal in diesem Jahr hat das Ministerium den innerstaatlichen Extremismus als „nationalen Prioritätsbereich“ ausgewiesen, in dem 7,5 Prozent der Milliarden an Zuschussmitteln für die Bekämpfung des Extremismus aufgewendet werden müssen.

Herr Biden verstärkte im Nationalen Sicherheitsrat ein Team, das sich mit innerstaatlichem Extremismus befasste und in den letzten vier Jahren erschöpft war, und beauftragte Beamte des Justizministeriums, des FBI und des Nationalen Zentrums für Terrorismusbekämpfung, so hochrangige Verwaltungsbeamte.

Generalstaatsanwalt Merrick B. Garland, der 1995 bei der Untersuchung des Bombenanschlags auf Oklahoma City behilflich war, sagte, das Justizministerium werde auch dem häuslichen Extremismus Priorität einräumen.

FBI-Agenten haben jahrelang Fälle von häuslichem Extremismus bearbeitet. Der erneute Fokus von den höchsten Regierungsebenen ist jedoch eine große Verschiebung, insbesondere da sich die Verwaltung damit auseinandersetzt, ob aktuelle Taktiken und Ressourcen ausreichen, um zukünftige Angriffe zu verhindern.

Die Entscheidung, das Problem direkter anzugehen, steht im Gegensatz zu den Ansätzen der Trump- und Obama-Regierung. Im Jahr 2009 hob die Obama-Regierung eine nachrichtendienstliche Bewertung auf, nachdem sie erwähnt hatte, dass Veteranen für die Rekrutierung durch inländische extremistische Gruppen anfällig sein könnten, was zu politischen Rückschlägen führte.

Die Verantwortlichen der nationalen Sicherheit treffen sich jetzt mit Vertretern der Abteilung für Veteranenangelegenheiten sowie der Abteilungen für Bildung, Gesundheit und menschliche Dienste, um das Problem nach Angaben von Verwaltungsbeamten direkt anzugehen.

Forscher sagen, dass die Vereinigten Staaten Jahre hinter europäischen Ländern wie Deutschland und Norwegen zurückliegen, um die Bedrohung durch Rechtsextremismus zu verstehen. Daniel Koehler, ein Forscher in Deutschland, der anderen Ländern bei der Durchführung von Deradikalisierungsprogrammen geholfen hat, sagte, die Vereinigten Staaten hätten immer noch kein System für Familien aufgebaut, die bemerken, dass ein Mitglied eine bedrohliche Sprache verwendet oder auf andere Weise signalisiert, dass sie sich an Gewalt beteiligen könnten.

“Ich habe Eltern, die mir schreiben:” Ich weiß nicht, was ich tun soll “, sagte Herr Koehler und fügte hinzu, dass viele amerikanische Familien ihn nach dem Aufstand im Kapitol kontaktiert hatten und sich nirgendwo anders wenden konnten.

Die Betonung der Biden-Regierung auf das Thema ist ein willkommenes Zeichen für viele aktuelle und ehemalige Regierungsbeamte, die gesagt haben, dass solche Bemühungen unter der Trump-Regierung gebremst wurden.

Im September reichte Brian Murphy, ein ehemaliger Leiter der Geheimdienstabteilung des Heimatschutzministeriums, eine Whistleblower-Beschwerde ein, in der er die Leitung des Ministeriums beschuldigte, die Änderung von Geheimdienstbewertungen angeordnet zu haben, um die Bedrohung durch die Vorherrschaft der Weißen „weniger schwerwiegend“ erscheinen zu lassen und Informationen zu enthalten linke Gruppen, um sich mit Mr. Trumps Nachrichten abzustimmen. Die Führung der Heimatschutzbehörde unter der Trump-Regierung bestritt die Anschuldigungen.

Die Obama-Regierung ging in dieser Angelegenheit auch aus politischen Gründen vorsichtig vor. Bevor Herr Biden 2019 seine Präsidentschaftskandidatur ankündigte, fragte er Janet Napolitano, die zu Beginn der Obama-Regierung als Heimatschutzministerin fungierte, nach der Entscheidung im Jahr 2009, einen Bericht aufzuheben, in dem darauf hingewiesen wurde, dass US-Militärveteranen für die Rekrutierung durch Extremisten anfällig seien Gruppen.

“Ich dachte, Sie sprachen vorausschauend über Rechtsextremismus und Gewalt in Amerika und waren von weißen Supremacisten motiviert”, sagte Herr Biden Frau Napolitano während einer Veranstaltung in der New York Public Library.

Die Vertreterin Elissa Slotkin, Demokratin von Michigan, hat mit Vertretern des Weißen Hauses Gespräche über die Ernennung eines Zaren für inländischen Terrorismus im Büro des Direktors des Nationalen Geheimdienstes geführt. Sie hat auch eine mögliche Exekutivverordnung erörtert, die aktualisieren soll, wie die Bundesregierung Personen, die der terroristischen Aktivität verdächtigt werden, zu Listen hinzufügt, die zur Überprüfung von Personen verwendet werden, die versuchen, in das Land einzureisen oder Flugzeuge zu betreten. Solche Beobachtungslisten sind eher für ihre Verwendung gegen ausländische Terroristen bekannt, sagte Frau Slotkin.

“Ich glaube nicht, dass wir einen guten Überblick darüber haben, wie wir über häuslichen Extremismus und diese Datenbanken denken sollen”, sagte sie.

Während einer Anhörung des House Homeland Security Committee im vergangenen Monat stellte der Republikaner Michael McCaul, Republikaner von Texas, fest, dass die Vereinigten Staaten kein Gesetz hätten, das es den Staatsanwälten ermöglichen würde, einheimische Extremisten mit denselben Instrumenten anzuklagen und zu untersuchen, die auch gegen Terrorverdächtige aus dem Ausland eingesetzt werden.

Die Kampagnenplattform von Herrn Biden sagte, er werde daran arbeiten, ein solches Gesetz zu etablieren, “das die Redefreiheit und die bürgerlichen Freiheiten respektiert und gleichzeitig die gleiche Verpflichtung eingeht, den inländischen Terrorismus auszurotten, wie wir den internationalen Terrorismus stoppen müssen”.

Auf die Frage nach der aktuellen Position des Präsidenten zum Statut verwies Jen Psaki, Pressesprecherin des Weißen Hauses, auf eine Überprüfung, die Herr Biden der Bundesregierung anwies, gegen Extremismus vorzugehen, „weil es im ganzen Land so weitreichende Auswirkungen und Bedrohungen gibt . ”

Das Fehlen eines Gesetzes hindert das FBI nicht daran, solche Bedrohungen zu untersuchen, aber die Staatsanwälte sind gezwungen, sich auf ein Flickenteppich anderer Anklagen wegen häuslichen Extremismus zu stützen, einschließlich des Angriffs auf das Kapitol.

Das Justizministerium hat Strafanzeigen gegen mehr als 300 Personen wegen ihrer Rolle bei den Aufständen im Kapitol aufgehoben. Die Anklage reicht weit und umfasst den Angriff auf Polizisten, das illegale Betreten des Kapitolgebäudes und die Verschwörung, sich in den Prozess der Wahlbescheinigung einzumischen. Die Anführer der Oath Keepers-Miliz und der rechtsextremen Proud Boys-Gruppe gehören zu den wichtigsten Zielen der umfassenden Untersuchung.

Kritiker eines inländischen Terrorismusgesetzes sagen, es könnte die Überwachungsbehörden der Regierung zu sehr erweitern und gegen Minderheitengemeinschaften eingesetzt werden.

In einem von den Vertretern Rashida Tlaib aus Michigan, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aus New York und acht weiteren Demokraten unterzeichneten Brief hieß es, das Versagen des Geheimdienstes im Zusammenhang mit der Verletzung des Kapitols spiegelte die Zurückhaltung der Strafverfolgungsbehörden wider, gegen weiße nationalistische Gruppen vorzugehen, und nicht den Mangel an Regierungsinstrumenten überwachen sie.

Ein Beamter der Heimatschutzbehörde, der an der Überprüfung des Ministeriums zur Bekämpfung des inländischen Terrorismus beteiligt war, sagte, die Agentur brauche keine neuen Gesetze, sondern sollte stattdessen die Instrumente einsetzen, die seit langem gegen den ausländischen Terrorismus eingesetzt werden.

Eine Strategie besteht darin, die Reisedaten des Bundes zu analysieren, um die Muster möglicher Milizionäre und Extremisten zu verfolgen, insbesondere da amerikanische Gruppen zunehmend Verbindungen nach Europa herstellen, sagte der Beamte. Mitglieder der Gruppen können dann zu sogenannten Flugverbotslisten hinzugefügt werden, sagte er.

Die Überprüfung der Abteilung konzentriert sich nicht nur auf eindeutige Terrorakte, sondern auch auf diejenigen, die aufgrund einer Kombination aus psychischen Gesundheitsproblemen, Beschwerden und Ideologien, die eine wahrgenommene Rechtfertigung für Gewalt darstellen, zu Angriffen gedrängt werden. Beamte prüfen auch, wie Angriffe verhindert werden können, die denen am Freitag im Capitol ähneln, bei denen ein Mann sein Fahrzeug an einer Barrikade außerhalb des Gebäudes gegen zwei Beamte prallte, bevor er ausstieg und sie mit einem Messer angriff.

Der Verdächtige, der nach dem Angriff von der Polizei erschossen wurde, wurde von Polizeibeamten als Noah Green (25) aus Covington, Virginia, identifiziert. Freunde und Familie sagen, er habe mit Isolations- und psychischen Problemen zu kämpfen. Die Polizei hat den Angriff nicht als “terroristisch” eingestuft, und die Ermittler durchsuchen weiterhin die Social-Media-Beiträge von Herrn Green, die ein verstärktes Interesse an der Nation of Islam zeigten.

Das Heimatschutzministerium ist auch bestrebt, enger mit privaten Social-Media-Unternehmen wie Facebook und Twitter zusammenzuarbeiten, um Indikatoren für potenzielle Gewalt zu erkennen. Die Agentur hatte eine scharfe Gegenreaktion, weil sie vor dem 6. Januar keine Warnung herausgegeben hatte, trotz einer Reihe von Social-Media-Posts, die bewaffnete Gruppen beabsichtigten, nach Washington zu kommen, um gegen die Ergebnisse der Wahlen von 2020 zu protestieren.

Das Heimatschutzministerium stellte in diesem Jahr 77 Millionen US-Dollar für staatliche und lokale Regierungen bereit, um Polizisten auszubilden und den Informationsaustausch zwischen Staaten zu verbessern.

Unabhängig davon verdoppelte die Agentur die Anzahl der Zuschüsse für Organisationen, die Projekte zur Erforschung von Präventionsstrategien entwickeln, einschließlich des „Off-Boarding“ von Radikalisierungsgefährdeten. Die Zuweisung von 20 Millionen US-Dollar, die noch nicht vergeben wurde, erfolgt, nachdem die Trump-Administration die Zuschüsse entkernt hat, bevor sie im letzten Jahr seiner Amtszeit 10 Millionen US-Dollar wiederhergestellt hat.

Die Aufstockung der Mittel und die Anerkennung des Problems sind jedoch nur erste Schritte. Die Arbeit, Menschen zu identifizieren, die mit häuslichem Extremismus in Verbindung stehen, und ihnen zu helfen, sich von Gewalt zu lösen, bleibt entmutigend.

Frühere Bemühungen der Strafverfolgungsbehörden, die Hilfe von Gemeindemitgliedern in Anspruch zu nehmen, hatten zu Besorgnis geführt, dass die Bundesregierung versuchte, Minderheitengemeinschaften auszuspionieren.

Die neue Herangehensweise der Biden-Regierung an das Problem wirkt sich auf diejenigen aus, die an vorderster Front mit innerstaatlichen Extremisten zu tun haben.

Während der Obama-Regierung hatte Mohamed Amin Ahmed, der in Minneapolis eine gemeinnützige Organisation gegen Extremismus betreibt, erwogen, Zuschüsse des Bundes zu beantragen, um seine Bemühungen zu unterstützen, Comic-Videos zu erstellen, mit denen die Appelle des Islamischen Staates an Kinder entlarvt werden sollen.

Er entschied sich jedoch, sich nicht zu bewerben, nachdem er erfahren hatte, dass die Finanzierung an die Verpflichtung gebunden war, verdächtige Aktivitäten den Strafverfolgungsbehörden zu melden.

Herr Ahmed erstellt jetzt Videos für Anhänger von QAnon, der Pro-Trump-Verschwörungstheorie. Er sagte, er plane, die neue Runde der staatlichen Zuschüsse zu beantragen, die nicht mehr mit der Strafverfolgung verbunden sind.

“Wir versuchen zu helfen und nicht Teil des Überwachungsstaates zu sein”, sagte Ahmed.

Nach dem Aufstand im Kapitol sind die Bemühungen zur Bekämpfung des Extremismus in einem Dickicht schwieriger politischer und First-Amendment-Fragen gefangen. Interventionen, die darauf abzielen, politische Überzeugungen zu ändern oder mit Demokraten in Einklang zu stehen, könnten ineffektiv sein, um Rechtsextremisten zur Teilnahme zu bewegen, sagten Experten.

Ein Programm in New York City, das kürzlich ein Bundesstipendium von mehr als 740.000 US-Dollar erhalten hat, soll Menschen davon abhalten, politisch motivierte Gewalt auszuüben, ohne zu versuchen, ihre Überzeugungen zu ändern.

Richard Aborn, der Präsident der gemeinnützigen Organisation, die das Programm überwacht, sagte, dass er Teilnehmer durch Überweisungen von Strafverfolgungsbehörden akzeptieren würde, auch für Personen, die bereits wegen Verbrechen angeklagt wurden.

Personen, die sich nach einer psychologischen Untersuchung qualifizieren, würden dann mehrere Monate lang an einer Einzeltherapie teilnehmen. Der Erfolg des Programms würde an Veränderungen des emotionalen Zustands des Einzelnen gemessen.

Herr Aborn sagte, er erwarte, dass der Teilnehmerpool weiße Supremacisten, Dschihadisten und Menschen umfasst, die mit Massenerschießungen drohen.

Um Personen zu identifizieren, die nicht auf dem Radar der Strafverfolgungsbehörden stehen, plant Herr Aborn, gezielte Werbung zu entwickeln, die von Personen gesehen werden soll, die beispielsweise online antisemitische Suchanfragen durchgeführt haben. Durch Klicken auf die Anzeigen werden diese an das Eins-zu-Eins-Interventionsprogramm weitergeleitet.

“Dies ist alles ein neuer Raum”, sagte Herr Aborn. “Keiner von uns weiß mit Sicherheit, wie viel Fortschritt wir machen werden.”

Categories
Politics

Home Terrorism Risk Is ‘Metastasizing’ in U.S., F.B.I. Director Says

WASHINGTON – The FBI director warned Senators Tuesday that domestic terrorism “is metastasizing across the country” and reiterated the threat from racially motivated extremists while largely avoiding tough questions about the bureau’s actions prior to the Capitol sieges Has.

Director Christopher A. Wray, largely out of public view since the January 6 riot, condemned supporters of former President Donald J. Trump, who raided the Capitol, resulting in five deaths and numerous police injuries led.

“That attack, that siege was pure and simple criminal behavior, and we, the FBI, consider it domestic terrorism,” Wray said. “It has no place in our democracy.”

He also revealed that the FBI’s domestic terrorism investigations had risen to 2,000 since he became its director in 2017. The Capitol uprising was part of a wider threat that had grown significantly in recent years, Wray said.

He didn’t break the investigation down an ideological divide, but the New York Times reported that agents opened more than 400 domestic terrorism investigations over the past year when racial justice protests broke out, including about 40 cases against possible ones Supporters of the far left anti-fascist movement known as Antifa and another 40 in the Boogaloo, a right-wing extremist movement that wants to start a civil war. The FBI also investigated white supremacists suspected of threatening protesters.

Mr. Wray’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee was his first before Congress since the attack on the Capitol. It was free of the drama, according to similar statements last year, when Mr Trump – who named Mr Wray to his post – attacked him for detailing the threat posed by right-wing extremists and fomenting a false narrative that anti-fascists were the real danger. In contrast, the Biden government has made the fight against domestic terrorism a priority.

As a result of last year’s violence, the FBI and the Justice Department decided to increase the threat from anti-government and anti-authority extremists such as militias and anarchists. Still, the bureau officials said the threat is one level below that portrayed by racially motivated violent extremists such as neo-Nazis.

The FBI and Justice Department base these determinations on violent attacks like shootings or bombings and use the levels to decide where to concentrate resources.

Mr Wray pointed to another alarming trend: the number of white supremacists arrested in 2020 had nearly tripled since he headed the FBI three years earlier.

White supremacists have killed dozens of people in the United States since 2015, opened fires at a black church in South Carolina and synagogues in Pittsburgh and California, and targeted Hispanic shoppers at a Walmart in Texas.

The political implications of the threats at the hearing. While Republicans condemned the attack on the Capitol, some were quick to draw attention to riots in Portland, Oregon and other cities over the past year, emphasizing property destruction and attacks on the police. In an attack of violence, an avowed Antifa supporter shot and killed a pro-Trump protester in Portland in August.

Still, it was the first murder in more than 20 years that the office classifies as an “anarchist violent extremist”.

Mr Wray repeatedly responded to questions from Democratic senators that people connected to Antifa were not involved in the storming of the Capitol and that the rioters were true Trump supporters and did not falsely pretend to be them.

Illinois Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Democratic chairman of the committee, accused the Trump administration of downplaying the threat posed by white supremacists while fueling a narrative that left anarchists like those who identify with Antifa are at greater risk for the country represented.

Mr Durbin rattled off the litany of mass shootings, adding, “Let’s stop pretending that the threat from Antifa equals the threat from the white supremacists.”

The Capitol Police have largely assumed the blame for the January 6 attack. Its acting chief, Yogananda D. Pittman, has acknowledged to Congress that the authorities have not done enough to thwart the “terrorist attack.”

In fact, as of January 6, there were several indicators of the potential for violence. Federal law enforcement officials knew members of militias like the Oath Guards and far-right groups like the Proud Boys were planning to travel to Washington, some possibly with guns. Many supporters of QAnon, a dangerous conspiracy theory that has been identified as a potential threat to domestic terrorism, should also attend a protest rally where Mr Trump spoke prior to the attack.

In addition, the day before the FBI’s Norfolk, Virginia office released a report warning of possible violence and mentioned people sharing a map of tunnels in the Capitol complex. The information was not verified, however, and part of it citing a warning of an impending “war” appeared to have come from a single online thread.

The FBI forwarded the report to the Capitol Police, though its former boss, Steven A. Sund, said it never made it.

Mr Wray said FBI officers leaked the Norfolk information to other law enforcement agencies at least three times. He said that he only saw the report after the uprising, but that the handling of it was typical of such intelligence agencies.

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked what Capitol Police leaders should have done after seeing the January 5 report.

“I really want to be careful not to be a chair quarterback,” said Mr. Wray. He later said he did not have a “good answer” as to why Mr Sund did not receive the report.

With the signs of violence or worse on Jan. 6, Connecticut Democrat Senator Richard Blumenthal pressed Mr. Wray on why the FBI “did not raise the alarm in a more visible and ringing way.”

Mr Wray said the office had been publishing intelligence reports related to domestic terrorism – some specifically related to the elections – publicly and to other law enforcement agencies such as the Capitol Police for months.

He said the office was reviewing his actions but agreed that the uprising was not an “acceptable outcome”.

“We want to hit a thousand,” said Mr. Wray.

It was clear, however, that on Jan. 6, federal law enforcement agencies underestimated the potential for violence among Trump supporters, many of whom posed as law enforcement supporters.

The focus on Antifa with Mr Trump and some of his cabinet officials and the relocation of law enforcement agencies this past spring and summer may have helped the FBI fail to peak the growing anger among Mr Trump’s supporters over false allegations of electoral fraud that were culminating When he stormed the Capitol, current and former law enforcement officials have said. Mr. Trump himself had promoted this conspiracy theory and influenced his followers with the unfounded notion that the election had been stolen.

Categories
World News

U.S. companions in Asia might not wait round as Biden prioritizes home points

President Joe Biden speaks with State Department officials on his first visit to Washington, DC on February 4, 2021.

Saul Loeb | AFP | Getty Images

President Joe Biden’s administration has indicated that trade talks are not high on the agenda right now – but that is exactly what the US might need to draw closer to its partners in the Asia-Pacific region, two former US trade officials said.

Trade is important to the Asia-Pacific region as many economies in the region are export dependent. Improving trade ties with these countries will be vital for the U.S. to build its standing in the region where China’s influence is growing, officials said during a panel discussion on Wednesday at The Economist’s Asia Trade Week event.

Over the past few years, Asia-Pacific countries have signed two mega-trade deals excluding the US – suggesting the region won’t wait for Washington, said Wendy Cutler, a former US trade negotiator.

“Asia is just moving on with its trade deals,” said Cutler, who is now the vice president of the Asia Society Policy Institute think tank.

“As Biden talks about improving and strengthening ties with allies and partners, and working in multilateral institutions, our trading partners in Asia are sure to be asking about trade issues,” she added.

The two mega-trade deals excluding the US are the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP) signed in 2018 and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) signed last year.

CPTPP is a renegotiated and renamed version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership that the Obama administration sought with 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. But former President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the deal and let the remaining countries form the CPTPP.

RCEP is now the world’s largest trade agreement and includes China and 14 other economies in the Asia-Pacific region. The deal covers a market of 2.2 billion people and a production of $ 26.2 trillion – around 30% of the world’s population and economy.

Ironically, RCEP was “in a way” conceived as China’s response to the then-US-led TPP, said Charlene Barshefsky, who served as US trade agent under former President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001.

We helped create this system in Asia, the fastest growing region in the world, the place of economic power from which we are excluding the US …

Charlene Barshefsky

Senior International Partner, WilmerHale

But the U.S. eventually shut itself out of the region when it pulled out of the TPP, said Barshefsky, who is now a Senior International Partner at the WilmerHale law firm.

“We helped create this system in Asia, the fastest growing region in the world, the place of economic power from which we exclude the US, not because Asia excludes us – we excluded ourselves,” she said.

What’s next for US-Asia relations?

The U.S.’s absence from deals like RCEP means it won’t be there when major Asia-Pacific economies meet, Cutler said.

She said that heads of state and government from TPP countries met at events such as the summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). RCEP participants will instead be involved in such meetings, she said.

“We will not be there, we will not be invited. And you are not only talking about the agreement itself, you are also talking about new topics, you are talking about new challenges – and we are not going to be at the table for it,” said Cutler.

Some observers said the US could sign a new trade deal – or even join the CPTPP – with countries in the Asia-Pacific region to improve its position in the region. However, the Biden administration has stated on several occasions that it would like to invest in American workers and infrastructure as a priority before signing new trade deals.

Joining the CPTPP will also be politically difficult as the Americans have a “clouded view” of their predecessor, Barshefsky said. The TPP was widely criticized in the USA and never approved by Congress. Critics said the deal would hasten the demise of US manufacturing and hurt American workers.

However, the US may feel the urgency to participate if key partners like South Korea, UK and the European Union want to join the CPTPP, she added.

“That could mean a very significant jolt for the United States, positively losing ground to the countries they want to depend on. And I think that could change the equation,” Barshefsky said.

I don’t think the CPTPP is the only way for the US to get involved in the Asia-Pacific region.

Wendy Cutler

Vice President of the Asia Society Policy Institute

Until then, Biden could close closer deals that focus on specific sectors, Cutler said. In many cases, such deals may not require Congressional approval and could be easier to negotiate, she added.

“I don’t think the CPTPP is the only way for the US to get involved in the Asia-Pacific region,” Cutler said, adding that the Biden administration is initially focusing on issues such as climate change, digital commerce and improving security of supply chains.

“I think that’s how we should look at the region now because I think it’s a way to get us back there without trying to come up with a comprehensive deal that we’re not ready to do for domestic reasons,” she said .

Categories
Entertainment

What Defines Home Abuse? Survivors Say It’s Extra Than Assault

As destructive as these behaviors may be, they are not often viewed as inappropriate by law enforcement or the courts, adding to the belief that victims must be beaten and hospitalized before their accounts can be taken seriously. Doubts about how the judicial system would treat them are not unfounded: around 88 percent of the survivors surveyed by the ACLU said the police did not believe them or held them responsible for the abuse.

The new laws to combat compulsive behavior have raised some concerns from advocates who fear that – in trials that local lawyers claim are already piled up against survivors – the standard of evidence may be too high, especially when officials don’t have the Tools are in place to identify and prove patterns of risky behavior. “Researchers understand obsessional control as something that can help predict the outcome of a dangerous situation that will become fatal,” said Rachel Louise Snyder, author of “No Visible Bruises: What We Don’t Know About Domestic Violence Can Kill Us.” “But she added,” Law enforcement doesn’t necessarily recognize that. “

While coercive control has been illegal in England and Wales since 2015, 2018 saw the largest number of domestic violence-related homicides in five years, according to the BBC. The Center for Women’s Justice, a UK surveillance group, filed complaints in 2019 and 2020 alleging a “systematic failure” by the police to protect victims. “The officers on site do not understand the coercive control,” said Harriet Wistrich, the center’s director. Although some training was provided, she stressed that the police, social workers, and courts must have a common understanding of how emotional abuse can become criminal for the law to be most effective.

Others fear that the passing and enforcement of new laws in the United States could draw resources from urgent logistical needs of survivors or from other avenues to justice. A growing number of proponents say the best answer is not with the criminal courts, with their racial and economic inequalities, but with dialogue-based alternatives like restorative justice.

Judy Harris Kluger, a retired New York judge who is the executive director of the nonprofit Sanctuary for Families, agreed that coercive control is important as a concept. As a judge, however, she said, “I would rather put energy into enforcing the laws we have,” she said, “but focus on other things besides litigation to combat domestic violence,” such as funding prevention, Housing and employment programs for survivors.

Proponents say, however, that legal recognition of the harmfulness of the problem will make the fight easier – and will help force a reckoning of its spread.

You point to Scotland as a potential model. Domestic abuse laws passed in 2019 focus on coercive control and include funding for training. Much of the police and support staff have taken compulsory courses to understand the problem, said Detective Superintendent Debbie Forrester, Police Scotland’s director of domestic violence. The judiciary also received lessons. In addition to a public campaign in which it was declared that the control of the behavior is illegal, the authorities made the perpetrators aware that they were being scrutinized: “We will talk to previous partners,” warned a police statement.

Categories
Business

Home terrorism has outdated the specter of worldwide terrorism, warns ex-NYC police commissioner

Former New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton warned CNBC’s The News with Shepard Smith that domestic terrorism has superseded the threat of international terrorism in the United States.

“For the past 20 years our greatest concern has been international terrorism – ISIS, Al-Qaeda,” Bratton said in an interview on Friday evening. “Now it is here, and it is us, and it is the citizens of the United States, some of whom are rebelling against everything we have believed in for the past 300 to 400 years.”

Former Department of Homeland Security counterterrorism officer Nate Snyder reiterated Bratton’s views on The News with Shepard Smith.

“When you talk about the lethality of the threat, domestic terrorism – that is, violent white supremacists, neo-Nazis, sovereign citizens, militia movements – has been the deadliest threat in the last decade compared to Al Qaeda and ISIS-inspired threats,” said Snyder.

State capitals across the country are at risk of violence in the days leading up to President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration. FBI Director Christopher Wray urged state officials to take any extremist threat seriously during an inauguration safety briefing on Friday at FEMA headquarters.

“If we discover that a person poses a violent threat, we and our partners will use every legitimate authority and method to interrupt any attempt or attack,” Wray said. “Our attitude is aggressive; It will stay that way with the initiation. “

Wray said the agency was following “extensive” online chatter, including calls for armed protests. Some internet extremists have ignored President Trump’s call for peace, citing the fact that, according to Politico, he has still not officially admitted. There are also some extremists on the Telegram instant messaging platform who, according to the Washington Post, are calling for surprise attacks across the country.

Bratton told host Shepard Smith that it was “much, much more difficult” to fight domestic terrorism and that the US lacks the “tools to fight domestic terrorism” as it does in fighting international terrorism is. Snyder criticized the detrimental impact of the Trump administration’s policies on weakening the country’s ability to counter threats posed by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and sovereign citizens.

“Unfortunately, during this administration, there has been a systematic atrophy of these efforts, not just from my previous office, but also from analysts in the department’s intelligence and analysis department who would focus primarily on tracking these threats,” said Snyder.

The National Park Service has closed the National Mall due to widespread safety concerns. The Army confirmed Friday that up to 25,000 National Guard troops will be in DC to ensure safety for Biden’s inauguration. That’s roughly five times the number of troops the US currently has in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bratton said there should be more transparency when it comes to law enforcement providing information to U.S. citizens to keep them informed and keep them safe.

“I hope that after January 20th we will return to a situation where we can become more transparent and open and where American law enforcement can be where they need to be, on these podiums rather than with you speak some of us, ex-law enforcement officers, “Bratton said.