WATCH: Full interview with U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley spoke with VOA contributor Greta Van Susteren on Wednesday in New York.

VAN SUSTEREN: “Ambassador, nice to see you.”

HALEY: “Thank you.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “Ambassador, I first want to talk about North Korea. The news is that North Korea — DPRK — and South Korea, are going to walk together at the Olympics under that one flag. Your thoughts about that?”

HALEY: “I think it’s good that North Korea and South Korea are talking. But we shouldn’t be misled by the fact that just because they’ve had talks about the Olympics and that this is going to happen, that that’s going to take away the dangerous side of North Korea. Until they actually stop the ballistic missile testing, until they actually show that they are willing to denuclearize, we have to be very careful. They’ve done these talks before —that’s what stalled it for all these years. We have to make sure that they are about action, and that action is to completely stop all nuclear activity that they are doing.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “Well, it’s apparently even going a little further that there’s going to be a hockey team jointly between North Korea and South Korea.”

HALEY: “I think that’s fine. I think that if they want to do that, that’s fine. But it doesn’t stop the international pressure from everyone that is telling North Korea to stop. So, they can go and have those regional cooperation on that level, but at the end of the day, we still have nuclear missiles in North Korea that they continue to test and they continue to threaten the United States and the world with. So, we’re going to keep that at the forefront.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “You think this is over divide and conquer, and this is sort of a … some motive behind Kim Jong Un is not just an interest in Olympics and unification of the peninsula, that there is some message to the U.S.?”

HALEY: “I think this is a distraction. I think this is doing what North Korea has always done, which is when things get hot, start talking.  But the problem is, we’re not going to play the same game we’ve always played. We’re not just going to talk and think that they’ve suddenly seen their ways and seen the way out. They have to tell us they are going to stop with the testing.  We have to see that the testing actually stops. And then, we have to know that they’re going to eliminate the program.” 

VAN SUSTEREN: “Or else.  I mean, if they don’t. We’ve had agreements before with North Korea that they have cheated on. We’ve got the situation where they’ve managed to navigate around sanctions. They’ve had some countries that penetrated sanctions. What is the “or else?” And I heard that President Obama said we are not going to let North Korea become a nuclear nation.  I’ve heard people in the current president’s administration say they are a nuclear nation, they’ve got a nuclear weapon, they just haven’t figured out how to deliver it. So, where are we on this?”

HALEY: “But we’re not comfortable with them being a nuclear nation, and we never will, because we’ve seen the reckless …”

VAN SUSTEREN: “So what do we do?”

HALEY: “Look, just because North and South Korea are holding hands today doesn’t mean that threat hasn’t gone away. The United States and the international community is going to keep up the pressure on North Korea to totally disband. Until that time, we are going to wait and make sure there’s no activity, no testing.  But when that time comes, we will decide at that point.  All the cards are actually in North Korea’s hands on how we respond.  So, if they do the right … then we are happy to work with them.  If they don’t, we’ve got options on the table.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “It’s interesting. For the first time — correct me if I’m wrong — you are actually able, the United States, the ambassador to the U.N. here, to get China and Russia to go with sanctions on North Korea. How did that come about?”

HALEY: “You know, we’ve done three resolutions now. I think it was the largest sanctions bill that had ever been on a country. I think what we had to do was show the threat, and show that the threat was real. And then also show that the fact North Korea would not be doing this ballistic missile testing if they didn’t have the money to do it. They’re not using revenue to feed their people, they’re using the revenue to build weapons to do these tests. And so, what we said was, we’ve got to cut off the revenue stream.  And so, now you see 90 percent of the trade’s been cut off. Over a third of the oil’s been cut off. Multiple trade issues have stopped. Investments have stopped. But it’s all about making sure they don’t have enough money to continue the nuclear program.” 

VAN SUSTEREN: “So, you think Kim Jong Un is just going to say, ‘OK, we’re not making money, so we’re going to stop?’”

HALEY: “We don’t know what he’s going to do.  But we can’t be OK with just saying, you know, he’s never going to go there. I mean, this is a real threat to the United States, so we have to take it seriously. We have to keep the pressure on. There’s no relaxing from the United States’ standpoint.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “What about the false alarm?  We had the one in Hawaii just recently and now Japan. What’s the United States going … what are we going to do to combat that? We can’t keep sending false alarms out to people.”

HALEY: “I think it’s terrifying. I mean, it’s absolutely terrifying for the people on the ground that get those. But I also think that the administration is going to do everything they can to make sure that all of that is in place and working properly, and those are the things we have to continually need to check up on and continue to make sure that don’t happen.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “You recently went to Pakistan — I mean,  to Afghanistan. Just got back. Why did you go there?”

HALEY: “Well, I wanted to see what the … how the U.S. strategy was working.  And I will tell you, it is working extremely well.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “What is the strategy, and how do you measure the success of it?”

HALEY: “So, I think you look at …First of all, the whole Security Council went, which is great, because they could see the U.S. engagement in Afghanistan and what the U.S. was looking to do to make sure Afghanistan never is the source of terrorism going forward. And so, we have to stop the terrorism. Few things — We’ve already told them this has to be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned and that the United States is going to support that process, but they have to have the responsibility to do it, and they have. We’re seeing reforms already on the corruption. They have set retirement into place — moving the age from 72 to 60, which basically did away with 4,000 military leaders, including 70 generals. So now, there’s a younger generation coming into the military. We see girls are now going to school, which wasn’t happening. The status on women is changing. It’s got a long way to go, but it is changing, and they’re really owning up to the responsibility they have. And what we’ve seen more than anything is the Taliban is greatly weakened and has recessed and is close to coming to the table. That’s exactly what we want.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “I think — and correct me if I’m wrong — one of the things …  problems in Afghanistan is getting terrorist help from Pakistan. Am I correct?”

HALEY: “Well, that’s a threat.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “That’s a real threat and a real problem, and that as a consequence, we’re cutting off aid, the United States. President Trump has had very harsh tweets after the first of the year, and you’ve had harsh words about Pakistan saying we’re cutting our aid to you.”

HALEY: “Well, I think what you saw is, through all of our meetings with Afghanistan, there was one thing that continued to ring true through all of the meetings. And that is, every time Afghan starts to move in the right direction, Pakistan takes them back, because of the ability they continue to hold over terrorists in Pakistan. From our standpoint, the only way we’re going to have a safe and stable Afghanistan is if we eliminate that threat. We have told Pakistan. We’ve tried to work with them. They didn’t want to do it. We’re just letting them know we mean business. We’re not going to turn around and give a billion dollars in military aid for them to harbor terrorists that shoot at our soldiers. We’re just not going to do that. And so, cutting off that military aid was sending them a message. I hope that brings them to the table, and they realize they have to stop this. It’s not just about Afghanistan. It’s not just about the region. It’s about the world. And we made a strong point in doing that.” 

VAN SUSTEREN: “I don’t pretend to have all the solutions, but when we cut off the aid to Pakistan, quite naturally, the first thing we worry about is whether or not we create a vacuum. We know China has already built a military, or they’re working on a military base in Pakistan. And we’ve got a situation in Pakistan where historically, A.Q. Khan was the one who gave technology to North Korea for the nuclear weapon. So naturally if we alienate — not that Pakistan has been a good friend to us — but to the extent that we withhold money, do we run the risk of creating more of an incentive for Pakistan to work with North Korea, and does China move in on a greater influence in Pakistan, when we’re hoping they’re going to help us in North Korea?”

HALEY: “You know, I know a lot of people have scare tactics and thoughts about ‘Oh, but this will happen, and that will happen.’ What I know is what has already happened, which is everyone has tiptoed around Pakistan for years, and Pakistan has continued to harbor terrorism. Now, we’re doing things differently. We are not going to reward bad behavior anymore. And so, this is telling Pakistan, ‘No more acting like you’re doing the right thing and hurting what we’re trying to do. If you want to be with us, then we want you to be with us. But if you’re going to continue to work against us, we’re not going to pay you to do it.’”

VAN SUSTEREN: “All right. And the whole idea of money — American money and contributions UNRWA has had — you’ve been very vocal in reducing the amount of contributions the United States makes, and this has to do with what goes on in much of the refugee camps in the Palestinian part of the world. What’s the end point on this?”

HALEY: “Well, I think there’s a couple of things. We mentioned to UNRWA multiple times it needs to be reformed.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “Reform, meaning? Because I know that Israel is unhappy with it thinking that it’s anti-Israeli and that it’s a fertile breeding ground for terrorism against Israel. Is the reform that way, or is the reform in sort of the bureaucracy and how it’s run and how it distributes the money, aid, to the camps?”

HALEY: “I think we’re looking at overall reform. When we say that we’re basically looking at the fact that you’ve got, basically they’re considering Palestinian as a refugee. Looking at the fact that what they’re teaching in schools is not necessarily the right way to have things run. It is very top heavy from an administration standpoint. But also, the other side of that is again, we’re not going to reward bad behavior. Here you’ve got the Palestinians who are basically saying they’re going to cut the U.S. out of the peace process. They’re saying they no longer want to have anything to do with us. They go and take us to the United Nations and try, basically, are very hostile in what they say and what they do. We’re not going to pay to be abused. It doesn’t make sense. What we’re going to say is, ‘Look, we want to help you, but first of all, you’ve got to show us that you’re going to reform something that’s broken.’ Secondly, ‘Don’t think that you can sit there and say hateful things about us and turn around and write you a check.’ It’s wrong in every turn .And so basically, what we’re saying is, ‘Look, you can have this little bit, but after that, we’re going to re-evaluate the relationship.’”

VAN SUSTEREN: “Again, I don’t mean to make this seem, like, simple — like I have all the answers. But the problem is when you do that, you’re also withholding money for refugee camps in nations like Jordan, which is already very financially pinched by having so many refugees in their country. So, we hurt one of our allies, and they’ve got enormous problems every time they don’t get the money from us to help. So, you know, it punishes not just the people who run UNRWA the way United States would like it, but nations like Jordan.”

 

HALEY: “Greta, why is the United States have to be the only one that bails out everyone? Why do we continue to give the money? You have 120 countries who voted against us, that could more than take up the level of debt that UNRWA has. Why is it the United States … we need to start being smart about the way we spend. We need to start really looking at foreign policy and seeing what the U.S. goals are and where we want to go. We want a peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We want to make sure that that moves forward. By the Palestinians cutting us out of the peace process, it shows that they weren’t serious, that they’re not serious in truly getting to peace. So, we’re trying to make sure that if we’re going to spend taxpayer dollars, that we’re not spending it on something that doesn’t move U.S. interests forward.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “I guess my thought is, only Jordan has been an ally. And do we run the risk of creating that vacuum? And as I said, I don’t have the answers, but when we make some of these decisions … and even though I don’t like to spend a dollar to be insulted, I want to see every dollar spent well in my personal businesses, but do we run the risk that we hurt a nation who has been our ally and been so important in that region to us by making decisions like this?”

HALEY: “But that’s assuming that UNRWA is all we do. We actually … I not only went to Jordan, I also went to Turkey. We met with their governments. We brought them back and met with the secretary-general in the UN to see how we shift money to better help those host countries, because they’re doing an amazing job with Syrian refugees. So, we do a lot. UNRWA’s one part of it, but we fund a lot of different things. We recently worked with Jordan on how we can better help them with infrastructure. We turned around and worked with Turkey because they wanted help with education. Those things are going to continue to happen. We’re not holding that back, but what we are going to say is, ‘We aren’t going to blank-write a check to all of them. We’re going to start to prioritize where and who needs money.’ We have a great relationship with Jordan, that’s not going to change. We’re going to continue to fund them. We’re going to continue to assist them where they need it. It’s just not going to be through UNRWA.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “All right, Iran. Naturally, it’s on the top of all the agendas — the deal that the United States and other nations struck with Iran over their nuclear weapons program. Where do you stand on that?”

 

HALEY: “It was a bad deal. It was a dangerous deal. We basically gave them billions of dollars to turn around and say they weren’t going to do nuclear and allow them to do everything else, from ballistic missile testing to support on terrorism to, you know, continuing to move arms. It’s incredibly dangerous.”

 

VAN SUSTEREN: “If I take that premise that it’s a bad deal, and I have not read the whole deal, and I … but if the United States backs away from the deal, this was a deal that, you know, that our government made, our former president made. What does that tell another nation? Let’s jump ahead. Let’s say Kim Jong Un, that we want to sit down with him, we want to strike some deal with him. Why would he trust our word, if all of a sudden the next president  comes along and says, ‘Well, that was a dumb deal.’”

HALEY: “Because if you don’t hold true to what your responsibility is, we don’t hold true to ours. Now is not, ‘We’ll give you the money, and we hope you act OK.’ Now is, ‘Look, if we’re going to be part of this deal, you have to keep your end of the bargain.’ And not only that, when you look at Iran, you have to also look at the fact, in what country — in what part of the world — is it OK to send ballistic missiles and use them like they’re doing … ”

VAN SUSTEREN: Doing in Yemen?”

HALEY: “Like they’re doing with the Houthis in Yemen. In what way is it OK for them to support terrorism, which they continue to do around the region. In what way is it OK that they continue to support Assad? In the way that he has abused his people. I mean, in what way is all of that OK? That is not part of the deal. We’re in compliance with the deal, but what we’re saying is, ‘Look, we’re doing everything with the deal we’re supposed to, but all of these other actions …’ The EU needs to step up. We need to see the international community step up. And Iran needs to step up. And those things need to stop. That’s what you’re seeing the U.S. say, ‘If you want us to take your deal seriously, then you have to take all these other actions seriously.’”

VAN SUSTEREN: “So, correct me if I’m wrong in saying this. Is that the deal itself is that we’re complying 100 percent? That they are complying with the words of the agreement, however on the side, they’re doing these other things that aren’t in the agreement, like supplying weapons to the Houthis? Is that a violation of the deal itself or just other bad behavior?”

HALEY: “That is violations of multiple Security Council resolutions. Those are …”

VAN SUSTEREN: “But not the – is that part of the Iran deal?

HALEY: “It’s not part of the Iran deal, which is why we’re in it. But it is absolutely violations of multiple UN resolutions, and we recently had a report that just came out that cited those violations. So that’s not us, that’s actually the United Nations came out and cited Iran for ballistic missile testing, arms sales, support of terrorism, all of those things. So we’re not just being one actor that’s saying this, we’re now showing the international community we still have things that are dangerous, and it’s not safe, and we have to do something about it.”

 

VAN SUSTEREN: “You also traveled to South Sudan?”

HALEY: “I did.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “Been to a refugee camp there, and met with President Salva Kiir. They’re in the midst of a wicked civil war. Where, what’s our, when I say ‘our’ I say the United States, what’s the UN doing about this? What’s the US doing about it? What do you see as our role in that?”

HALEY: “Well we went to South Sudan to see exactly what was happening on the ground and to find out what the situation was, and I had a frank conversation with President Kiir. I said, ‘Look, the US supported you, counted on you, put a lot of investment in you, and we’re not getting a return on investment.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “What’d he say?”

HALEY: “I mean, he listened. And then we said, ‘This is what has to happen. The fighting has to stop, we have to make sure the humanitarians are getting access, and we need to see a change in your government.’ And his response was, ‘You will start to see a change.’ So now he has issued a memo that encourages all local governors to accept humanitarian actors throughout the country, we’re waiting to see if that follows through like it’s supposed to, he had held off on fighting but we’re starting to see that come back again, these are things we’re going to have to continue to keep the pressure on. I went to multiple refugee camps, and the way the South Sudanese live, no one should live like that. That is a terrible situation that is being done by a, you know, a hostile political actor that needs to be reined in, and the US doesn’t need to support that anymore. So he has the scenario where I basically said the decision was up to him- if he decided to continue to fix things and try and make life better for the people in South Sudan, we’d continue to support him. If he’s not, we’ll completely re-evaluate our situation with South Sudan.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “In 2012, President Obama lifted the sanctions in Myanmar, in part, from the military in Myanmar, and the hope was that that would advance them towards democracy, and in fact they elected Aung San Suu Kyi to be their president. We’re now in a situation, at least since August, where a million people have been chased by the Myanmar military out of Myanmar into Bangladesh. I’ve been to the refugee camp, I’ve heard stories women have told me that babies were ripped out of their arm, that I’ve seen horrible stab wounds on children, this an absolutely horrible humanitarian catastrophe, and now all these people are in Bangladesh in this refugee camp. What, if anything, is going to be done by the UN or the US to combat this humanitarian crisis?”

HALEY: “It is one of the worst tragedies I think I’ve ever seen. I mean, to see exactly the full scope of the ethnic cleansing that has happened in Burma is terrible. And you look at the fact that they were driven out by the military, they were treated horribly, whether it was throwing babies in fires, raping women, killing families, all of those things, to now have those refugees in Bangladesh, which didn’t have much to start with.”

VAN SUSTEREN: So what can be done?”

HALEY: “Well I think a couple things. We have obviously worked with the Secretary General at the United Nations, I think he is looking to put a special envoy that goes actually to Bangladesh and Burma to look at the situation, we’ve put harsh pressure on the military, although I don’t know if we’re seeing the changes we want to see.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “They’ve got two Reuters journalist who were trying to report on what’s going on in the Rakhine area of Myanmar, they’ve got them in custody that kept them away from their families and lawyers for a long time, is there anything the UN and the United States can do about those Reuters reporters. They’re just trying to report on the crisis.”

HALEY: “There’s a lot that we have to do, and we’ve already brought the attention about the reporters, they know that not just us, the world is watching, but Burma is broken. It is absolutely broken, and we can’t look at the fact that the United States dealt with it a few years ago and think that we have to coddle it.”

VAN SUSTEREN: Military sanctions, sanctions of the military again?”

HALEY: “I think that we need to look at everything. I think we absolutely need to look at everything. And I don’t think that in any way we should be soft on what is happening in Burma with the government or with the military. I think they need to be held accountable for what they’ve done, and I think we need to provide a safe place for the refugees because repatriation is not something that is going to come easily because they’re too scared to go back. And they have a right to still be scared. So a lot has to be done when it comes to that.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “One last question, you’ve been an ambassador for a year.”

HALEY: “Yes.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “Your thoughts on being the UN Ambassador.”

HALEY: “I mean, it’s such a privilege, it really is. I feel honored, I’m humbled, the idea of serving your country is already overwhelming, but the idea of serving your country to move the ball and try see if we can make the world a safer place has been really rewarding.”

VAN SUSTEREN: “Frustrating? Because I mean, when I look at Myanmar, I want to do something yesterday, and I imagine that it’s hard for ambassadors to look at some of these crises and not want them to handle yesterday.”

HALEY:  “I think that’s been the hardest part, is seeing the number of people suffering around the world, and wanting to fix it and not being able to fix it fast enough, I think has definitely been the hardest part.”

VAN SUSTEREN: Ambassador, thank you so much, hope you come back!”
…

your ad here

Lawyers for the Uzbek man accused of killing eight people by speeding a truck down a New York City bike path in October proposed a plea deal on Wednesday in which their client would accept life in prison without parole if

prosecutors did not seek the death penalty.

The lawyers for Sayfullo Saipov, 29, made their proposal in a court filing opposing prosecutors’ request on Tuesday that U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick set an April 2019 trial date. The prosecutors had cited victims’ “strong desire for closure.”

Saipov’s lawyers said that the requested date would not leave enough time to prepare for trial in a possible death penalty case, and that the fastest way to resolve the case would be for prosecutors to accept their proposed deal.

“In short, a decision by the government not to seek the death penalty would bring immediate closure to the case without the need for the public and victims to repeatedly relive the terrible events of October 31, 2017,” the lawyers wrote.

The office of interim U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman in Manhattan, which is prosecuting the case, is expected to make a recommendation on whether to seek the death penalty, though the final decision will be made by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Both Berman and Sessions were appointed by President Donald Trump, who on Twitter called for Saipov to face the death penalty.

Berman’s office declined to comment. A lawyer for Saipov could not be reached for comment.

Saipov, a legal permanent U.S. resident, was arrested immediately after the October 31 attack in which police said he plowed a truck down a bike lane on Manhattan’s West Side. Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack, which was the deadliest assault on New York City since September 11, 2001.

On November 21, Saipov was charged in an indictment with eight counts of murder, 12 counts of attempted murder, one count of providing material support to Islamic State and one count of violence and destruction of a motor vehicle resulting in death. He pleaded not guilty on November 28.

Following the attack, Saipov told investigators he was inspired by watching Islamic State videos and began planning the attack a year earlier, according to a criminal complaint filed by prosecutors the day after the attack.
…

your ad here

Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon refused to answer questions Tuesday from lawmakers who are investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Bannon spent hours in front of the House Intelligence Committee, one of several bodies conducting its own Russia probe.

The committee responded to Bannon’s refusal by issuing a subpoena. The top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Adam Schiff, said White House officials had instructed Bannon to not answer questions.

“No one has encouraged him to be anything but transparent,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters.

She said the Trump administration has been “cooperating fully with these ongoing investigations” and that the Congress has to consult with the White House before it can obtain confidential material.

Schiff said he expects Bannon to make another appearance before the committee.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported that special counsel Robert Mueller subpoenaed Bannon last week to testify before a grand jury investigating Trump campaign contacts with Russia. 

Bannon has continued to avow his support for Trump. But his relations with the president frayed badly after he was quoted extensively with critical remarks about the campaign and the first months of White House operations in author Michael Wolff’s new book “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.”

The former Trump adviser was quoted as calling it “treasonous” and “unpatriotic” that Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., son-in-law Jared Kushner, now a White House adviser, and then-campaign manager Paul Manafort met with a Russian lawyer in the midst of the campaign in an effort to get “incriminating” evidence against Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

After the book was published, Trump started calling Bannon “Sloppy Steve” and said, “Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind.” Bannon also was removed last week as the top executive at Breitbart News, the alt-right news site that has championed Trump’s brand of populism.

Trump has repeatedly said there was “no collusion” between his campaign and Russia, although none of the months-long congressional investigations or Mueller has reached any conclusions. 

“Do you notice the Fake News Mainstream Media never likes covering the great and record setting economic news,” Trump said in a Twitter comment Tuesday, “but rather talks about anything negative or that can be turned into the negative. The Russian Collusion Hoax is dead, except as it pertains to the Dems. Public gets it!”

Mueller has secured guilty pleas from Flynn and former foreign affairs adviser George Papadopoulos for lying to federal agents about their contacts with Russia, and has charged Manafort and another campaign aide, Rick Gates, with money laundering in connection with their lobbying efforts for Ukraine that predated the 2016 presidential campaign. 

Mueller is also investigating whether Trump obstructed justice when he fired former Federal Bureau of Investigation director James Comey, who was heading the agency’s Russia probe before Mueller was appointed, over Trump’s objections, to take over the investigation. 
…

your ad here

A Detroit man who had lived in the U.S. for nearly 30 years has been deported to Mexico.

 

Jorge Garcia came to the U.S. with his family when he was 10 years old. He has no criminal record, pays taxes and has long sought legal status, according to his family. The 39-year-old landscaper was deported on Monday and can’t return to the U.S. for a decade.

 

Garcia had faced an order of removal from immigration courts since 2009, but had been granted stays of removal under former President Barack Obama’s administration.

 

Garcia learned in November that he’d been scheduled to be deported as part of an immigration crackdown by President Donald Trump’s administration. A request from Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Dingell pushed back the deportation date to allow Garcia to spend the holidays with his wife and two children, who are all U.S. citizens.

 

“We did not want to put up a Christmas tree because it was way too sad to even get to that point,” his wife, Cindy Garcia, said. “It was rough because we knew he was going to leave eventually. All we could do is make memories.”

 

Immigrant advocates say deporting people like Garcia separates families.

 

“Rather than wait to see what reforms are made, immigration officials came into work on a national holiday to take Jorge away from his family,” said Michigan United, a group that advocates for immigrant rights and other issues.

 

Jorge Garcia is too old to qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allows young immigrants living in the country illegally who were brought here as children to work and study in the U.S.

 

“I got to leave my family behind, knowing that they’re probably going to have a hard time adjusting,” Garcia said. “Me not being there for them for who knows how long. It’s just hard.”

 

Khaalid Walls, a spokesman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Tuesday that the federal government was justified in deporting Garcia.

 

“All of those in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States,” Walls said in a statement.
…

your ad here

Five officers involved in two Navy ship collisions last year that killed a total of 17 sailors are being charged with negligent homicide, the Navy said Tuesday.

A Navy spokesman, Capt. Greg Hicks, said the charges, which also include dereliction of duty and endangering a ship, will be presented to what the military calls an Article 32 hearing to determine whether the accused are taken to trial in a court-martial.

The disciplinary actions were decided by Adm. Frank Caldwell and are the latest in a series of moves the Navy has made in the aftermath of the deadly collisions, which investigators concluded were avoidable. It fired several top leaders, including the commander of the 7th Fleet, Vice Adm. Joseph Aucoin, and several other senior commanders in the Pacific.

The Navy has been reeling from tough questions arising from the two collisions. The destroyer USS Fitzgerald struck a commercial ship off the waters of Japan in June, killing seven U.S. sailors. The destroyer USS John S. McCain collided with an oil tanker in coastal waters off Singapore in August, killing 10 U.S. sailors.

The Navy said it is filing at least three charges against four officers of the Fitzgerald, including the commanding officer, who was Cmdr. Bryce Benson at the time. Benson suffered a head injury in the collision and was airlifted to the U.S. Naval Hospital at Yokosuka, Japan. A Navy investigation found that Benson left the ship’s bridge before the collision. Also facing charges are two lieutenants and one lieutenant junior grade, whose names were not disclosed. The Navy said all four face criminal charges, including negligent homicide, dereliction of duty and endangering a ship.

Fewer officers from the McCain are being charged. The Navy said the ship’s commander at the time, Cmdr. Alfredo J. Sanchez, is being charged with negligent homicide, dereliction of duty and endangering a ship. A chief petty officer, whose name was not disclosed, faces a charge of dereliction of duty.

In a statement, Hicks said the announcement of charges Tuesday is “not intended to and does not reflect a determination of guilt or innocence related to any offenses. All individuals alleged to have committed misconduct are entitled to a presumption of innocence.”

Hicks said that in addition to the criminal charges, additional administrative actions are being taken against unidentified members of both crews, including non-judicial punishment for four from the Fitzgerald and four from the McCain.

As a result of the two deadly accidents, at least eight top Navy officers, including the 7th Fleet commander, were fired from their jobs last year, and a number of other sailors received reprimands or other punishment that was not publicly released. Among the senior officers relieved of duty, in addition to Aucoin, were Rear Adm. Charles Williams and Capt. Jeffrey Bennett. Williams was the commander of Task Force 70, which includes the aircraft carriers, destroyers and cruisers in the 7th Fleet, and Bennett was commander of the destroyer squadron.

In a report released last November, the Navy concluded that the two crashes, as well as a third collision in May and a ship grounding, were all avoidable, and resulted from widespread failures by the crews and commanders who didn’t quickly recognize and respond to unfolding emergencies.

​A second report called for about 60 recommended changes to address the problems. They ranged from improved training on seamanship, navigation and the use of ship equipment to more basic changes to improve sleep and stress management for sailors.

The extensive training and leadership failures prompted the top Navy officer, Adm. John Richardson, to order all naval commanders around the world to review their staffs and ships to see if they had similar problems.

The Navy’s investigation of the two collisions found that in addition to bad judgment, the crews were not adequately prepared.

“In the Navy, the responsibility of the Commanding Officer for his or her ship is absolute,” it said. “Many of the decisions made that led to this incident were the result of poor judgment and decision making of the Commanding Officer. That said, no single person bears full responsibility for this incident. The crew was unprepared for the situation in which they found themselves through a lack of preparation, ineffective command and control, and deficiencies in training and preparations for navigation.”
…

your ad here